Expertise
-
Practice Areas:
Bar Admissions:
Education:
- University of Toronto (2009) JD
- University of Toronto (2009) MA (Economics)
- McGill University (2006) BA (Honours - Economics and Political Science)
- LawVision Group (2017) Legal Project Management
Details
- Bio
- Cases
- Associations
- Blog Posts
- News & Media
- Publications & Presentations
- Recognition
Paul-Erik Veel
Paul-Erik’s commercial litigation practice focuses on class actions, competition law, intellectual property matters, complex commercial disputes, and professional liability.His clients include major technology companies, financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and franchisors.
Paul-Erik has extensive trial experience, having acted as counsel in trials involving a number of industries and subject-matters, including a dispute over the implementation of a software package, an intellectual property matter relating to a pharmaceutical product, a misleading advertising case, and several contractual disputes. He has appeared repeatedly before both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Paul-Erik also has extensive experience with regulatory and public law proceedings, having represented clients in professional discipline committee proceedings, commissions of inquiry, and before various administrative tribunals.
Paul-Erik has acted as an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. He is currently a sessional lecturer in the graduate program in the Department of Economics at the University of Toronto, where he teaches Economic Analysis of Law. He has published articles on a variety of legal topics, including contracts, class actions, competition law, and constitutional law. Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght in 2010, Paul-Erik graduated as the Gold Medalist from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and then clerked for Madam Justice Louise Charron at the Supreme Court of Canada.
-
Cygnus Electronics Corporation v Hitachi AIC Inc
Counsel to a defendant electronics company in a proposed Ontario class action relating to allegations of price-fixing in the market for electrolytic capacitors.
-
Counsel to Cineflix and related entities in a proposed class action relating to the alleged misclassification of independent contractors in the television production industry.
-
Counsel to BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. in an overtime class action brought by a former investment advisor on behalf of all BMO NBI investment advisors in Ontario.
-
Counsel to Atos in a dispute respecting the termination of a subcontract for data conversion and software support. The matter was subject to numerous motions and proceeded to a five week trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where Atos was successful in recovering approximately $5.5 million in damages.
-
Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Inc v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Counsel to Subway in a $210 million defamation action against the CBC and others relating to a Marketplace episode.
-
Royal De Maria Wines Co Ltd v Lieutenant Governor in Council
Counsel to the Vintner’s Quality Alliance in a judicial review of the rules and regulations pertaining to the approval of wines in Ontario. The VQA was successful before the Divisional Court.
-
Counsel to a physician in a case involving a perforated bowel during a hysterectomy. The case was dismissed on consent without costs after two weeks of trial
-
Counsel to a prominent criminal lawyer in a case involving allegations of solicitor’s negligence in connection with a guilty plea in US criminal proceedings. Successful in having the action dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
-
Toronto District School Board v SAP Canada Inc.
Counsel to the Toronto District School Board in an action relating to the implementation of an SAP software system.
-
Jeffery v London Life Insurance Company
Counsel to the Law Foundation of Ontario successfully responding to an appeal regarding the payment of its levy in a class action.
-
Canadian Bar Association
-
Ontario Bar Association - Member-At-Large of the Civil Litigation and Health Law Executives
-
The Advocates' Society
-
American Bar Association - Litigation and Antitrust Law Sections
-
On December 28, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the case of Das v George Weston Limited. At 114 pages, the Court’s decision is thoroughly reasoned and substantive. It also deals with important issues that are significant to all class action practitioners. For those who don’t want to wade through the full sets of reasons—and there’s a lot there—here’s our summary of the key take-aways from the Court of Appeal’s decision.
-
Court of Appeal rates arbitration clause one star in proposed employment class action against Uber
A frequently litigated issue in Canadian class actions is the extent to which parties can agree in advance to opt out of class actions in favour of private arbitration. In the context of consumer protection claims, provincial legislatures have generally eliminated the ability of defendants to defeat class actions through arbitrations by declaring clauses requiring the parties to submit such disputes to private arbitrations to be void. However, it has remained an open question as to whether and when courts would enforce arbitration clauses in other contexts, where the effect of such enforcement would be to defeat a proposed class proceeding.
-
Proactively managing class action risk: the virtue of voluntary compensation
Product liability cases are routinely certified as class proceedings. Indeed, allegations that a product was negligently manufactured, or that a manufacturer failed to warn consumers of a particular risk, seem particularly amenable to resolution on a class-wide basis. However, not every such case is certified as a class proceeding. The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Richardson v Samsung Electronics Canada Inc is one example of a case that was not certified. More importantly, it shows what steps defendants can proactively take to avoid certification of class actions against them.
-
While class actions can be a useful tool for access to justice, there are limits to the types of claims that can be appropriately advanced through class proceedings. Indeed, the requirements for certification that appear in similar form in virtually every class action statute across Canada are meant to ensure that only those actions that can meaningfully proceed as class actions are in fact certified. Many cases, including certain types of pharmaceutical product liability claims, will simply be unsuitable for certification as a class action. The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Price v H Lundbeck A/S provides an example of such a case.
-
As I have observed before, class actions are expensive for defendants and resource-intensive for the justice system. In order to try and minimize that expense, defendants typically want to dispose of class actions they face as early as possible. This has given rise to a body of case law that addresses the question of when defendants will be allowed to bring pre-certificate motions. As the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Austin v Bell Canada shows, defendants face a high threshold in persuading the court to allow such motions to precede certification.
-
A tale of two forums: consumer class actions and the CRTC in telecommunications cases
Given Quebec’s unique civil law regime, we seldom blog about legal developments in Quebec. However, sometimes decisions of Quebec courts have broader relevance outside of Quebec; this is often the case where Quebec courts rule on federalism issues. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Bell Canada v Aka-Trudell falls into that category. In that case, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to dismiss a class action against Bell Canada, rejected the argument that the Quebec Superior Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter ought to have instead been considered by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”).
-
Foreign Discovery in Advance of Certification in a Class Action? Not So Fast, says Divisional Court
Given the expansive discovery rights available under US law, plaintiffs may be tempted to try to use those rights in pursuit of proceedings under Canadian law. In its recent decision in Mancinelli v RBC, the Divisional Court placed an important limit on the ability of parties to do so. The Divisional Court upheld an order requiring plaintiffs in a proposed class action to obtain Court approval before taking any steps in furtherance of a subpoena issued by an American court.
-
Sweet Justice for IP Rights Holder: Agreement not in Restraint of Trade
The intersection of intellectual property law and competition law is an area that gains greater significance with each passing year. Much of the focus in this area recently has been on the appropriate scope of action to take by regulators. For example, in Canada, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines promulgated by the Competition Bureau in 2016 have attracted significant attention.
-
A long-standing issue in Canadian class actions law relates to the ability of parties to contract out of class actions and instead require that any disputes be submitted to arbitration. For class counsel and class members, such clauses are anathema, representing an attempt by sophisticated organizations to thwart class actions by requiring individual claims to proceed to arbitration. For businesses, such clauses have significant value; they can result in individual cases being resolved quickly and efficiently, without the complications and attendant costs of a class action.
-
The regulated conduct defence: we’ll drink to that
It says something about Canada that many famous cases throughout Canadian legal history relate to the regulation of alcohol. Through the early 20th century, the regulation of alcohol was a fertile domain for disputes about Canadian federalism. Now, in the 21st century, the complicated regulatory scheme of governing alcohol sales in Ontario is once again making new law. This time, however, the dispute is not over arcane principles of federalism, but rather over the scope of the regulated conduct defence to conspiracies under the Competition Act. While early 20th century federalism cases may be of interest to only a select few, the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Hughes v Liquor Control Board of Ontario is likely to attract significantly broader interest, particularly among companies operating in regulated industries.
-
Pre-certification motion can be efficient
Paul-Erik Veel was mentioned in the Law Times article “Pre-certification motion can be efficient” on October 28, 2018. This article discusses why the launch of a pre-certification motion in a proposed class action may be worthwhile.
-
Portable Productivity: Lawyers on Integrating Tech Into Practice
Tom Curry, Sana Halwani, and Paul-Erik Veel were quoted in Sean Robichaud's latest blog post dated October 24, 2018. The blog post provides tips from lawyers who have integrated technology into their practice and have, as a result, streamlined their productivity.
-
Lenczner Slaght Litigators Ranked as the Best in their Fields
Canada’s leading litigation firm is proud to announce that 25 of the firm’s 58 lawyers have been recognized in the Best Lawyers in Canada 2019 publication across multiple categories.
-
Lenczner Slaght Partners Featured in Latest Benchmark Recognitions
Benchmark Canada has recognized six Lenczner Slaght partners as the most talented litigators under 40 and two partners recognized as two of the top female litigators in Canada.
-
Viability of umbrella purchaser claims in question
Paul-Erik Veel is quoted in the Law Times article Viability of umbrella purchaser claims in question on April 23, 2018. This article discusses the intensifying debate over the viability of umbrella purchaser claims.
-
Lexpert Recognizes Lenczner Slaght’s Professional Excellence
An increasing number of the firm’s lawyers have been ranked by their peers as leading practitioners in their field.
-
Lenczner Slaght Receives Top Tier Ranking in Benchmark Litigation
19 Lenczner Slaght leading litigators are ranked in Benchmark Litigation's 2018 directory, including 7 new additions since last year. Three of the firm's litigation stars are also recognized as a Top 50 Trial Lawyer in Canada.
-
Cleveland Baseball Team Discontinues Chief Wahoo Logo
Following a year and a half of ongoing litigation on this matter, Lenczner Slaght and Douglas Cardinal are delighted by the decision of Major League Baseball and the Cleveland baseball team to discontinue the discriminatory Chief Wahoo logo on the Cleveland uniforms beginning in 2019.
-
Gift cards–a new way to reduce liability
Paul-Erik Veel is quoted in the Canadian Underwriter article Gift cards–a new way to reduce liability on January 26, 2018. This article discusses Loblaws' response to the revelations of bread price-fixing.
-
Indigenous activist heads back to court in fight against Cleveland Indians logo
Paul-Erik Veel was quoted in the Canadian Lawyer Legal Feeds article Indigenous activist heads back to court in fight against Cleveland Indians logo on December 7, 2017 regarding Douglas Cardinal's continued fight against Cleveland's baseball team name and logo. The Ontario Divisional Court heard arguments on the case on December 13, 2017.
-
Applying Foreign Law in Canadian Class Actions
Paul-Erik Veel’s blog post Applying Foreign Law in Canadian Class Actions was reprinted in Lexpert Magazine’s January 2019 issue. In the article, he discusses the key take-aways from the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Das v George Weston Limited.
-
Time to expand analysis of the merits in all class actions
Paul-Erik's article Time to expand analysis of the merits in all class actions was published by Lawyer's Daily. Paul-Erik discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Fehr v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada which provides a clear example of an appellate court setting aside the motion judge’s decision on certification because the motion judge improperly considered the merits of the case.
-
Paul-Erik's article Ontario Court of Appeal Rules in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc: A Sensible Result with Challenging Implications appeared in the Class Actions Law section of the Ontario Bar Association.
-
Expert Witness Roles and Responsibilities (Beyond the Box)
Paul-Erik Veel spoke at the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators' Expert Witness Symposium on November 19, 2018. His panel discussed the roles and responsibilities of an expert witness.
-
Paul-Erik Veel spoke at Thomson Reuters' "In Medias Res: Preparing Yourself for the Future of Law Practice" program. His panel discussed the incorporation of legal project management (LPM) into daily practice to enhance efficiency and client/lawyer satisfaction.
-
The Surprising Dangers of Going Paperless
Paul-Erik Veel and Sana Halwani co-authored the article The surprising dangers of going paperless that appeared in Precedent Magazine's summer issue.
-
Competition Law In The “Mainstream” - The Rise of Hipster Antitrust?
Paul-Erik Veel spoke at the CBA Competition Law Section's Young Lawyers Half Day Symposium in Ottawa. His panel discussed whether the practice of competition law is about to enter the era of “Hipster Antitrust” and its potential implications on mergers and conduct in the coming years.
-
Absent Foreign Claimants in Canadian Class Actions: Where to After Airia Brands?
Paul-Erik Veel and Graham Henry co-authored the article Absent Foreign Claimants in Canadian Class Actions: Where to After Airia Brands? that appeared in the The Canadian Class Action Review: Volume 13, Issue 1.
-
Law Practice Program Trial Advocacy Workshop
Paul-Erik Veel and Colin Johnston acted as faculty advisors at the Law Practice Program Trial Advocacy Workshop on October 12, 2017.
-
5 things you can do on your first day of law school to build your career
Paul-Erik Veel's article 5 things you can do on your first day of law school to build your career appeared in PrecedentJD Magazine.
-
Best Lawyers (2018-2019)
Health Care Law, Medical Negligence
-
Benchmark Canada (2018)
Future Star
-
Benchmark Litigation (2018)
Under 40 Hotlist
-
Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory (2018)
Medical Negligence
-
Dean's Key (2009)
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law
-
Gold Medal (2009)
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law
-
Precedent Setter Award (2014)