Fact Scenario: Premier Residential ("Premier") provides property management services to condos in downtown Toronto. Its contract with the Elle Tower is due up for renewal for a 5-year term. The Board of Directors of the Elle Tower has decided to not renew its contract with Premier, but it chooses not to tell Premier of its decision to terminate the property management agreement. Instead, the Elle Tower asks Premier to increase its management services such that it takes on additional tasks and responsibilities at the Elle Tower free of charge as part of its existing contract. Premier decides to comply with the request by increasing the number of on-site property managers at its cost (with four staff the industry standard) instead of two as required under the contract and by taking on general contracting duties for some minor renovations, also free of charge, in the belief that these efforts will secure a renewal of a five-year term. It continues to charge overtime for any service calls on the weekend and after normal hours of operation. Elle Tower did not communicate to Premier it would renew. Elle Tower then issues a termination notice exactly one month before the termination date in compliance with the minimum notice requirements in the contract between Premier and Elle Tower. The competitor is both cheaper than Premier and promises to do everything that Premier does, including the additional tasks it had taken on before Premier's contract had terminated. Premier later discovers that the Elle Tower had decided to give its contract for property management services to its competitor. Premier feels it has been duped and wants to seek remedies against the Elle Tower. Elle Tower argues it has no legal obligation to renew and can give the minimum notice as legally required under the existing management contract. Elle Tower further argues Premier met the industry standard and didn't offer anything extra or lose anything despite the additional efforts Premier may have made to secure a contract. Your assigning lawyer, Daniel Tsai, who acts for Premier, needs a legal opinion on the merits of the case. conduct a legal memo based on the facts and law in the three cases below as to whether Premier will be successful and on the basis of which legal doctrine?

Analyze the following cases Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45

Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Legal Memo Template Introduction: TO: Assigning Lawyer FROM: You DATE: When Memo is Due RE: [Case/Matter Number] [Client Name] [Matter Name] - [Subject of Memo]

Question Presented: o You will introduce the memo and the question asked of you. This is good practice as many lawyers are handling hundreds of files and they may not remember what they asked you to do. Your grade will reflect your ability to articulate the question asked of you.

Short Answer: o You will then state a short answer. Your grade will reflect your ability to summarize the answer and use only pertinent facts in the short answer. o This is where you state your opinion in two or three sentences. There will be time to address all aspects of the issues in the main portion of the memo.

Background/Facts: o You will introduce the facts of the case briefly and as applicable to your memo. You will lose grades for including any facts that do not pertain to your argument.

Discussion: Provide a discussion on how the three cited cases affect your case. Do this in the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) format. This section is important in that it allows you to show that you have read and critically thought about the cases and how they affect your own case. This is the most important part of this assignment (it must be a minimum of 3 paragraphs)

Conclusion: Lastly, provide a long form conclusion. This is where you restate your opinion and any business/strategic/practical advice for the lawyer working on this case.