What is the test for terminating a contract by a Minister of Health and Social Development?

In this case, there is an express provision for termination of the contract by either party on 30 days’ notice. If the contract was enforceable, the general law of contract would require that term to be given full force and effect. The Minister’s motivations for terminating the contract have been impugned, on the grounds the Minister was attempting to avoid the harsh glare of publicity, or to avoid the need to negotiate reasonably with the company, or to limit potential damages for breach of the agreement if the company’s position found favour. However, no matter whether private law or public law governs the determination of this case, motivation is irrelevant. As a matter of private law, the Minister had the express right of termination under the terms of the agreement. As a matter of public law, personal animus, or improper motive, is only material where it leads the Minister to use its authority unlawfully. In Roncarelli v. Duplessis, supra, the governing statute conferred a broad discretion which the decision maker was accused of exercising to achieve an improper purpose. In that case, the improper purpose was to injure financially, by the cancellation of a license, a Montreal restauranteur whose activities in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were regarded by the provincial government as troublesome. It must be shown not only that the decision maker took into account irrelevant considerations, it must also be shown that pertinent considerations were ignored. Here the Minister’s exercise of his discretion was closely associated with the purpose of the statute and the object of the statute’s administration.