Paul-Erik Veel


Paul-Erik has* more than a few areas of practice. He has tried commercial, competition, intellectual property, employment, and criminal cases, not to mention having acted as counsel in commercial and sports law arbitrations and administrative hearings. He has been recognized as a Precedent Setter not only for his for breadth of practice, but also because he has more than a dash of § teaching experience at the University of Toronto in law and economics, international law, and public law. Whatever the problem, Paul-Erik solves it with his talent , know-how and experience, which allow him to analyze the case from all angles and to cross-examine the toughest of witnesses. .



Paul-Erik Veel

is a partner at Lenczner Slaght.

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. 

Show more
  • 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

  • Applying Foreign Law in Canadian Class Actions: A Novel Application of Old Principles in Das v George Weston Limited

    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.

    Paul-Erik Veel | January 23, 2019

  • 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.

    Paul-Erik Veel | January 2, 2019

  • 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.

    Paul-Erik Veel | October 31, 2018

  • Recent decision in pharmaceutical class action highlights importance of scrutinizing common issues in proposed class proceedings

    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.

    Paul-Erik Veel | August 2, 2018

  • Pre-certification motions in class actions: are courts setting the bar too high for early and efficient disposition?

    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.

    Paul-Erik Veel | July 4, 2018

  • 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”).

    Paul-Erik Veel | June 11, 2018

  • 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.

    Paul-Erik Veel & Chris Kinnear Hunter | April 27, 2018

  • 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.

    Paul-Erik Veel & Andrew Skodyn | April 3, 2018

  • Justice Perell Stays Proposed Class Proceeding against Uber, in Favour of Arbitration in the Netherlands - Heller v Uber Technologies Inc.

    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. 

    Paul-Erik Veel | March 28, 2018

  • 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.

    Paul-Erik Veel & Margaret Robbins | March 22, 2018

Show more
Show more
Show more
  • 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)

Back to top