Litigants (and their lawyers) often develop theories regarding a
party's underlying motivation in a legal dispute. While these
theories sometimes provide useful insight into a party's
strategy or settlement position, such theories are, as a general
rule, best left out of the pleadings. Pleading ulterior motive may
lead to a costly motion to strike.
This is illustrated in a recent decision of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario, in which the Court confirmed that a plaintiff's
motive in bringing an action, even if improper, does not in itself
provide a defence to an action and is therefore generally
irrelevant. In Huachangda Canada Holdings Inc. v. Solcz Group
Inc.,1 Hoy A.C.J.O., Trotter and Jamal
JJ.A. upheld the decision of Penny J. of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice striking out two paragraphs in the appellant's
statement of defence, without leave to amend. In the paragraphs at
issue, the appellant pleaded that the respondents' ulterior
motive in bringing the
