a mode of termination open on the language of ss. 17.2 and 17.4.
Even if Sapient ultimately could not justify its termination of
AMS services for cause, that would not alter the limit placed by
the Subcontract’s language on Siemens’ reasonable expectation
about the damages recoverable for the termination of the other
part of the contract involving DC services. The termination
for convenience clause effectively defined the upper limit of
Sapient’s liability for damages in respect of DC services: Open
Window Bakery (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 767,  O.J. No. 1228
(C.A.), at para. 43, vard on other grounds, S.C.C., supra, at
paras. 9 and 23.
 Siemens argues that even if the terms of the Subcontract
provided Sapient with alternative modes of performance, the
minimum performance principle should not apply because Sapient did not act in good faith when it terminated the Subcontract.
Siemens contends the minimum performance principle should
be read in light of the overarching duty of good faith and honest
performance recognized in Bhasin. Siemens argues that, in
terminating the Subcontract, Sapient breached its common law
duty of good faith, as well as its contractual duty of good faith
set out in s. 20.1 of the Subcontract. Consequently, Sapient cannot take advantage of the less burdensome damages calculation
formula contained in the Subcontract’s termination for convenience clause.
 I am unable to accept these submissions for two reasons.
 First, although the trial judge found that Sapient did not
act in good faith when invoking the termination for cause provision to end the entire Subcontract, he did not conclude that
Sapient’s lack of good faith barred the application of the minimum performance principle. Instead, he concluded the principle
did not apply because the termination for convenience clause
was not an available alternative mode of performance given
Sapient’s intention to terminate the entire Subcontract, not just
the DC services portion.
 Second, in Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas
(2011), 106 O.R. (3d) 427,  O.J. No. 2786, 2011 ONCA 460,
at para. 47, this court stated that the application of the minimum performance principle did not depend upon good faith conduct by the breaching party.
 Siemens submits that the decision in Agribrands has
been overtaken by that in Bhasin. I am not persuaded by that
submission. Bhasin focused on the issue of the performance of
contracts: specifically, the existence of a general organizing principle of good faith contractual performance and a common law
duty to perform contractual obligations honestly. Bhasin did not