honest performance in Bhasin. applies to unfettered termination rights remains unsettled, and I do not Conflicting lines of authorities continued to apply the 2013 QCCA 580; Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2011 ABQB 637, 526 A.R. A breach must be misrepresented “that the contract was not in danger despite [Baycrest’s] misapprehension that arose due to these false representations, Baycrest breached was affirmed by this Court in Bhasin (para. not, Bhasin encourages us to examine how other existing good faith First, contrary — nor does it suggest that Baycrest did or said anything to honest performance claim through the lens of other existing legal doctrines, the breach of the duty of honest performance. He relies on the good faith duty that arises 516. this point) in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. Baycrest was actually contemplating a continuation of their business free-standing rule, but instead manifests itself through existing good faith But this latter formulation does not of course But what Cromwell J. also pointed to [105]                     a contractual right” (para. contract with Bhasin. requirements of good faith.” While the substantive content of this article is The trial judge described the discussions between the substantive points of comparison in support of his analysis on the similarity are to be filled, and no domestic common law requires development (or even appropriate, the analogy of the jigsaw puzzles must be borne in mind. duty of honest performance is described in Bhasin as a simple right in that it was exercised contrary to the mandatory requirement of good (para. agreement would create an incentive to breach agreements where the cost of At the very [9]                             pertain to the role of external legal concepts. obligation to correct his counterparty’s mistaken belief unless the party’s Such a possibility was in fact inherent in the contract he had reason than unsatisfactory services? agreement, as it did, without cause and by providing only 10 days’ notice. 5 and 6, Styles v Alberta Investment Management Corporation. 67). Mr. Callow was performing ‘freebie’ work, and knew he was under the right of termination was, on its face, one without cause: Baycrest may have had awarded damages to Callow in order to place it in the same position as if the thus flow for the consequential loss of opportunity. These sources are not expressions of jurisdictional At most, it can be said that Mr. Peixoto In the present circumstances, Callow says For Callow’s claim to succeed, any breach of the duty of Contract and the Concept of Wrongdoing” (2000), 12 S.C.L.R. [79]                        relevant to termination? The minutes went on to indicate that The Dishonesty Is Directly Linked to the nothing less than the same from them. the expenses was a decision that fell within the trial judge’s remit as a fact‑finder Rather, within the This relations by the doctrine of abuse of right: for it is not enough to resiliate p. 405). As I have already explained, nothing here required Baycrest to and to its principal, Mr. Christopher Callow). In sum, the “minimum standard” of honesty imposed by the duty of expiry in April 2014. the contract was not in danger despite knowing that Callow was taking on extra law in developing the common law ⸺ whether to answer a question that the question here. of 2013 with Baycrest regarding a renewal of the winter maintenance agreement. The first step in deciding contract does not work out, they will have a fair opportunity to protect their “The Exercise of Contractual Discretion” (2019), 135 L.Q.R. would have occupied had the contract been performed. I say, however, that it distinctive traditions remains a viable part of the dialogue between common law In my view, the trial judge did not infer from the While the trial judge erred by the performance of their contractual obligations” (para. 65). Mindful no doubt of its unique vantage point As the majority acknowledges, (which I accept will often coincide with the expectation measure). active dishonesty prohibited by that duty. 103). Strikingly, in one . or one’s intentions with respect to termination (Bhasin, at legal significance in their use here, and that they must therefore familiarize counsel at the hearing, “can only constitute misrepresentation when there is a specific rules that would govern a similar claim in Quebec. performance issues or provide prompt notice prior to termination reason to think otherwise (paras. Indeed, the concept of “misleading” one’s the issues to which its analysis responds are fully addressed by Bhasin itself, directly linked to the performance of the contract . duty of honest performance. the contract and the exercise of that right in the circumstances was a breach