purport to alter the existing principles concerning the proper
measure of expectation damages in the event of a breach of
 Indeed, there are suggestions in Bhasin — albeit not
definitive — that the minimum performance principle operates
in conjunction with the general organizing principle of good
faith. Recall that in Bhasin the contract ran for an initial term of
three years, with an automatic renewal for a further three years
unless one party gave six month’s written notice to the contrary.
At issue was whether the terminating party, Can-Am, had acted
honestly in exercising the non-renewal clause. In the course of
discussing the breadth of an organizing principle of good faith,
the Supreme Court alluded to the minimum performance princi-
ple when it stated, at para. 90:
Even if there were a breach of a broader duty of good faith by forcing the
merger, Can-Am’s contractual liability would still have to be measured by
reference to the least onerous means of performance, which in this case
would have meant simply not renewing the contract. Since no damages flow
from this breach, it is unnecessary to decide whether reliance on a discre-
tionary power to achieve a purpose extraneous to the contract and which
undermined one of its key objectives might call for further development
under the organizing principle of good faith contractual performance.
 Given that comment, I am not persuaded, as Siemens
submits, that this court’s decision in Agribrands has been overtaken by that in Bhasin.
 Accordingly, I conclude the trial judge should have applied
the minimum performance principle and calculated Siemen’s
damages for the wrongful termination of the DC services portion
of the Subcontract by using the formula in s. 17.4, the termination for convenience clause. His failure to do so amounted to an
error of law, which is subject to review on the correctness standard: Deslaurier Custom Cabinets Inc. v. 1728106 Ontario Inc.
(2017), 135 O.R. (3d) 241,  O.J. No. 1817, 2017 ONCA 293,
at paras. 58-61, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 37039 (Oct. 19,
2017),  S.C.C.A. No. 249. Accordingly, I would set aside his
finding that Siemens was entitled to damages for the wrongful
termination of the DC services portion of the Subcontract in the
amount of $2,404,000: reasons, at paras. 321, 345 and 410.
IV. Second Issue: The Interpretation of the Damages Formula in
the Termination for Convenience Clause
A. The issue stated
 As noted, the trial judge performed an alternative calculation of damages in accordance with the formula set out in the