Can a court order a party to terminate an agency agreement that automatically renews automatically unless terminated?

In Esmail v. Petro Canada, [1995] O.J. No. 924, the court addressed an interlocutory injunction application to restrain the defendant from terminating an agency agreement. The parties had disputes in 1983 and 1984 in relation to the renewal of an agency agreement, however, the parties resolved the issues and continued with the agreement until 1994 when the defendant informed the plaintiff of its’ decision not to renew the agreement and requested vacant possession of the premises in five months. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was acting in bad faith in failing to renew the agreement. The agreement provided for termination with cause along with termination without cause in a number of circumstances including advance notice of the intention to terminate. Justice Spence writes as follows at ¶23: It is understandable that, in some dealer relationships, the reasonable expectation to be drawn from an agreement that renews automatically unless terminated is that the agreement will not be terminated in bad faith. Such a reasonable expectation would constitute a very persuasive reason to insist on the application of the good faith principle. ….. It was submitted that the fact that there was an inequality of bargaining power between the supplier and the dealer in a situation such as the present one would support, in effect, the imposition of an obligation to renew rather than allowing a termination. In the absence of legislation or other clear authority supporting such a contention, it appears to me that to impose such an obligation would involve a departure form the principle that commercial parties may make their own bargain and would instead move in the direction of a principle of something akin to fiduciary responsibility on the supplier, who is also a lessor and principal, for the continuing business activities of the tenant and agent. I see no basis for such a move. Nor do I see a basis for the court to assume the authority to set the terms on which the agreement should be renewed, which would be necessary if the purported obligation of renewal is to be implemented in accordance with paragraphs 52 of the agreement.