Canada: Summary And Discussion Of Atos v Sapient, 2016 ONSC 6852


The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently addressed a dispute about an outsourcing project, making interesting rulings concerning (i) limitation of liability clauses, including the exclusion of liability for lost profits, (ii) what constitutes a "material" breach of an agreement, (iii) the good faith termination of an agreement, and (iv) proof of damages. The decision in Atos v Sapient should be considered by parties in both the drafting and performance of subcontract agreements.

The case turned on principles of contractual interpretation, good faith, and proof of damages. Atos (formerly Siemens) successfully sued Sapient for wrongfully terminating a subcontract. Although Atos had breached the subcontract, there was no "material breach" as defined in the agreement so Sapient had no right to terminate; there was no breach that materially affected Sapient's ability to perform the primary contract that was incurable or not cured by Atos on 30 days' notice.

Sapient had also terminated in bad faith. The Court found Sapient had tried to create the material breach so that it could defensibly terminate the subcontract and improve its financial position in the primary contract. As damages for Sapient's breach, Atos received its lost profits under the contract notwithstanding a limitation of liability clause, which, among other things, excluded "loss of profits." The Court was reluctant to exclude lost profits since they are the default remedy for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Court restricted the limitation of liability clause to exclude only indirect damages.

Atos had also breached the subcontract in failing to fully perform it. Sapient counterclaimed. The Court considered Sapient's damages claim and rejected it for lack of proof. Sapient founded its claim on a number of unreasonable assumptions and failed to give any evidence of specific loss.

The Outsourcing Project and the Dispute

In 2006, Enbridge Gas Distribution ran an RFP process to replace legacy software with enterprise resource planning (ERP) software from SAP. The defendant Sapient had an ongoing commercial relationship with Enbridge but lacked experience with SAP software. Siemens Austria had extensive experience with the applicable SAP software, however, neither Siemens Austria nor Siemens Canada (later called the plaintiff Atos) had any relationship with Enbridge. Sapient and Siemens agreed that Sapient would submit an RFP bid and Siemens would act as subcontractor providing know-how about the SAP software. Enbridge awarded the Prime Contract to Sapient.

The Prime Contract provided that Sapient would convert data from Enbridge's old systems to be used with the new SAP software and would provide application support for the new system. Under the Subcontract between Sapient and Siemens, Siemens was responsible for data conversion, user support and application management and support services (AMS).

The project started in June 2007. It was soon embroiled in delays and by December 2008 the project was behind schedule in all areas. In May 2009, Sapient and Siemens agreed that Sapient would assume management of the data conversion services. Less than two months later, Sapient terminated its Subcontract with Siemens for material breach on the basis that Siemens had failed to perform the data conversion services to the expected performance requirements or industry standards. The day after terminating the Subcontract with Siemens, Sapient made a new agreement with Enbridge for Sapient to provide AMS services. Thereafter, Enbridge approved a milestone payment to Sapient relating to the readiness for rollout 1, which was the full amount of the payment due in respect of that milestone. Sapient paid no monies to Siemens in respect of this milestone payment notwithstanding it was Siemens that had carried out the work in relation to that milestone.

Material Breach

The Court found that Sapient breached the Subcontract by wrongfully terminating it.

Sapient had the right to terminate the Subcontract if there was a "material breach" that was incurable or that was not remedied within 30 days after Sapient notified Siemens of the breach. The Subcontract did not define "material," but the trial judge relied on the contractual context to interpret the word "material." Another provision of the Subcontract using the term "material" required Sapient to notify Enbridge of any breach or suspected breach of the Subcontract that "may affect Sapient's ability to perform its obligations under the Prime Contract in a material respect." The judge found that "material breach" within the meaning of the termination clause, therefore, meant "a non-trivial breach that affects or may affect Sapient's ability to perform its obligations under the Prime Contract in a material respect."

Consequently, Sapient could only terminate for cause if there was a breach that materially affected its ability to perform the Prime Contract that was either incurable or not cured by Siemens on 30 days' notice.

The trial judge went on to reject each of Sapient's allegations of material breach. The Court dealt with each alleged breach in turn, but noted more generally that Sapient had never treated Siemens as if it were in material breach of the Subcontract. Had it done so, Sapient would have been required under the terms of the Prime Contract to immediately notify Enbridge as well as provide notice of the breach to Siemens. Sapient had done neither. Thus, how Sapient behaved after the breach was found to be relevant to whether the breach was material.

Ultimately, the Court found that the available evidence could not establish that any of the breaches had in fact materially affected Sapient's performance of the Prime Contract and so Sapient had breached the Subcontract itself by improperly terminating it.

Absence of Good Faith Termination

Sapient argued that it was entitled to terminate for Siemens' failure to meet a particular milestone. This ground for termination was not included in Sapient's termination letter to Siemens. The Court found that Sapient was not entitled to terminate on the basis that Siemens' missed the milestone because (i) Sapient had not clearly referenced this basis for termination in the termination notice to Siemens (the Subcontract required such notice), and (ii) Sapient's termination right was discretionary; such discretion had to be exercised in good faith and Sapient had failed to do so.

Emails of Sapient executives produced at trial revealed that they no longer saw the Prime Contract as financially attractive. Before terminating the Subcontract, Sapient had met with Enbridge in an attempt to resolve the increased costs that it was facing.

The Court found that Sapient had attempted to contrive a material breach of the Subcontract to improve its own financial position in the Prime Contract by cutting out Siemens. In this regard, the crucial piece of evidence was the data conversion part of the project. Siemens had identified a number of issues with data conversion that management were contributing to the delays. Sapient took no action and even dismissed the suggestions of bringing in an independent consultant, despite Sapient's own analysis having led to similar suggestions. Shortly after taking control of the project from Siemens, Sapient adopted many of the reforms it had previously rejected. In addition, when Sapient terminated the Subcontract, alleging deficiencies with the data conversion, this part of the Subcontract was essentially complete. Together, this was enough to convince the Court that Sapient had deliberately delayed so that it could terminate the Subcontract for its own benefit. This was not acting in good faith in its decision to terminate.

The Court did not address whether Sapient had acted honestly or reasonably.


Both Sapient and Siemens claimed damages against the other for breach of contract. A part of Siemens' damage claim was for loss of profits. The claims for damages raised two major issues: (i) was Siemens' claim excluded by the contract, and (ii) did Sapient adequately prove its losses?

Contractual limitation of recovery for "loss of profits"

Following existing common law, the Court held that lost profits were the standard remedy for breach of contract. In other words, breach of contract entitles an innocent party to the payments they would have been given under the contract less the costs they would have incurred when performing the contract.

Sapient argued that any claim for lost profits was excluded by the contract terms. The Subcontract contained a typical clause excluding loss of profits:


The Court found that Sapient's interpretation of the contract would mean excluding the default remedy for breach of contract and that the other exclusions contained in the limitation of liability clause meant that the section should be read as prohibiting only indirect kinds of damages and not direct expectation damages. The reference to "loss of profits" was restricted to "consequential loss of profits" and the clause gave Sapient no protection from Siemens' claim for loss of profits characterized as direct expectation damages. In other words, the Court refused to allow Sapient to escape from the direct financial consequences of its contractual breach, i.e., payment to Siemens of the balance of the contract price.

Proof of Quantum of Damages

By counterclaim, Sapient sued Siemens for failure to fully perform the subcontract and the Court found Siemens liable for breach of contract. One of the heads of damages Sapient claimed was for unplanned costs attributable to delays by Siemens. Sapient claimed these damages were based on the difference between its projected costs for the project at the outset and its actual costs. In its submissions, Sapient relied on the principle that where damages are difficult to assess, the court must do the best it can in the circumstances to determine such damages. The Court noted that a litigant is not relieved from its duty to prove the facts upon which damages are estimated. Where an absence of evidence makes it impossible to assess damages, the litigant is entitled to nominal damages at best. The onus was on Sapient to prove its damages and the Court determined that it had not provided it with either adequate or appropriate evidence to enable the Court to make a proper determination of damages, entitling Sapient to nominal damages at best.

Sapient's damages submission had assumed that its initial projection of costs was accurate. Sapient, however, had never completed a project implementing SAP software and it hired no outside help when projecting costs. Furthermore, Sapient's claim appeared to have been compiled by Sapient's lawyers and the Sapient personnel who testified to the damages calculation at trial had no direct knowledge of how it was calculated. The Court expected Sapient to provide detailed evidence to support Sapient's assumptions and that linked the alleged delay to particular added costs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions