Peter E.J. Wells, C.S. 

Peter E.J. Wells, C.S.

Toronto
Brookfield Place, Suite 4400
181 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T3

t: 416.307.4007
e: peter.wells@mcmillan.ca

overview

  • Partner since 1981
  • Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada (the governing body for lawyers in Ontario) as a Specialist in Civil Litigation and Intellectual Property Law (Patents, Trade Marks, and Copyright).

For over 35 years, Peter Wells has practiced in the area of civil litigation with a principal focus on intellectual property and cases involving science and technology, such as product liability and environmental cases. He acts as trial and appeal counsel and provides advice and opinions in matters involving contracts relating to technology, intellectual property licenses and agreements including employment contracts for senior technical personnel, intellectual property in the academic setting, confidential information and trade secrets, infringement and validity issues relating to patents, trade-marks, copyrights, and industrial designs.

A number of Peter's cases have involved parallel litigation in other jurisdictions requiring co-ordination with counsel and experts in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Peter has acted as counsel in several court applications to obtain evidence in Canada for use in foreign proceedings. He also defends charges under several federal and Ontario statutes including the Food and Drugs Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Peter also acts as counsel in cases involving estates and trusts, including passing of accounts, applications for advice and directions, challenges to validity of wills, and variations of trusts.

Peter Wells has appeared as counsel in the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and at all levels of courts in Ontario, including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Representative Matters

Peter Wells has represented clients ranging from individuals to major international corporations in a wide variety of disputes including:

Intellectual Property Litigation

  • Action to enforce settlement of a copyright claim by a designer of a movie studio;
  • Application to obtain declaration under s. 14 of the Copyright Act that estate of author owned the last twenty-five years of the copyright term (the reversionary interest) notwithstanding an outright assignment of the copyright;
  • Established the ability to bring a trade-mark infringement proceeding by the simplified application process instead of an action after a successful appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal;
  • Counsel in patent infringement actions concerning technologies such as farm equipment, abrasive materials, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and eye care products; chemicals and chemical processes; electronics and electrical systems; automated audience measurement technology, steel making, metal working and processing, lubrication technology; computers, information technology and computer software; video games; household products; personal care products; food products; biotechnology;
  • Counsel in Industrial Design cases involving garden equipment, household appliances, bathtubs and furniture;
  • Counsel in trade-mark and passing off cases including litigation concerning certification marks and official marks.

Commercial Litigation

  • Acted as counsel for a steel maker in a case brought by a manufacturer against several suppliers and subcontractors alleging that failure of products it manufactured was caused by defects in the steel supplied. There were several expert's reports which were contradictory. Peter obtained the agreement of all counsel to have all the experts attend together in a neutral metallurgical laboratory where they could ask the technician to perform tests which all them could observe together. As a result, the differences between the experts were resolved, and resulted in a conclusion that the product failures were not the result of defects in the steel, but improper processing during manufacturing;
  • Application for judicial review in the Federal Court of a decision of the Federal government approving development in a wetland area designated under the Ramsar Convention;
  • Trial of action for goods sold and delivered. Consignee of the goods alleged they had never been delivered and that the signature on the waybill was a forgery. Judgment obtained for vendor of goods by proving that the consignee had signed the waybill, but had attempted to disguise his signature;
  • Defended financial institution in wrongful dismissal action – proved that employee had engaged in money laundering for relatives;
  • Defended claim for alleged improper design of a chemical process which resulted in the plant not meeting design production levels;
  • Trial concerning a $300,000 Ferrari sold by one car dealer to a second dealer whose dealership was under the administration of its creditors. The purchasing dealer was eventually convicted of fraud regarding the transaction, but the creditors of the dealer claimed a prior security interest in the vehicles taken in trade by the selling dealer which entitled them to keep the proceeds of the sale of the Ferrari and to obtain the return of the vehicles taken in trade. Based upon the Bills of Exchange Act and the Personal Property Security Act the selling dealer was found to be entitled to retain the vehicles taken in trade, notwithstanding the security held by the creditors;
  • Acted for Russian trader of goods in Ontario proceedings brought by a bank alleging that payments to the Russian trader were the proceeds of a fraud on the bank. Co-coordinated with Swiss lawyers where parallel criminal proceedings had been instituted by the bank. Established that the majority of the payments to the Russian trader preceded the fraud on the Canadian bank resulting in the bank discontinuing proceedings against the Russian trader;
  • Application for declaration whether changes to environmental regulations had retroactive effect with respect to decommissioning process of industrial land;
  • Counsel at trial in action by homeowner whose basement was flooded with gasoline leaking from neighbouring gas bar;
  • Counsel at trial in a case on behalf of a paint maker for libel against producers of a television programme which claimed that the product was unsafe;
  • Counsel at trial in a case on behalf of a group of farmers whose land has been contaminated by emissions from a nearby factory.
  • Counsel at trial and on appeal on behalf of a gold miner that had purchased a gold mine subject to a royalty agreement that was not as described in the purchase documents. Established that the purchaser was only responsible to indemnify the seller for the royalty obligation as described in the purchase documents, the seller was responsible for performance of the royalty obligation.
  • Counsel at trial, on appeal, and successful opposition to application for leave in motion by state trading company and government minister to have the action dismissed on the basis of the State Immunity Act. The activities complained of came within the commercial activity exception.

Estates and Trusts Cases

  • Application on behalf of next-of kin to prove heirship when the deceased left no will. Application to remove Public Trustee as administrator of the estate. Passing of accounts went to the Court of Appeal, ending the Public Trustee's long standing practice of treating intestate estates it administered as "Crown Estates" on which it paid interest at 3%, despite earning a significantly higher return;
  • Application to vary a trust to permit payments out to grandchildren to finance university education. Obtained special insurance policy to reconstitute the trust in the event of certain contingencies including possibility of certain beneficiaries having issue;
  • Passing of accounts in inter vivos trust where accounts had never been passed since trust established in the 1950s. Issues of whether certain payments authorized by trust deed and the investment policy employed by trustee;
  • Acted for trustees of an estate. Question of which was the last will. Solicitor who had purchased practice from prior solicitor instructed by deceased to make minor revisions to her "last will" made revisions to last will in the file, unaware that prior solicitor had drafted a later will which was not on file;
  • Application to interpret a will, and determine the legal effect of a codicil executed in Florida that did not satisfy the formal requirements of Ontario law.

Regulatory offences

  • Defended importer of food products charged with offences under the Food and Drugs Act, and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act because he had substituted his registered trademark for the trademark appearing on the goods;
  • Defended manager of a hotel operating the hotel under a Receiving Order granted by the Ontario Superior Court on charges under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Had charges dismissed on the basis that the Crown had failed to obtain leave of the Superior Court under the Receiving Order which prohibited commencement of any proceedings without leave and that the charge was a nullity since it alleged that a demand had been made for information, which the evidence showed was not actually made until the day after the charges were laid;
  • Defended a construction company on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a worker was killed. Not guilty verdict obtained on the basis that the contractor had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such an occurrence;
  • Defended a crane company charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a bridge collapsed as a crane was being taken across the bridge. Collapse due to calculation error by the engineer supervising the works and crane company followed his directions – charges dismissed;
  • Acted for a mine charged under the under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a used compressor flew apart. Established that all reasonable precautions had been taken as compressor had been fully overhauled before being put into service. Failure caused by a prior owner's substitution of a 60 Hz electric drive motor for the original 25 Hz motor without changing the drive pulley, causing the compressor to operate above maximum speed. Documentation for compressor did not indicate the type of electric motor;
  • Acted for manufacturer charged under municipal bylaws for discharging material into a sewer at levels above the maximum permitted. Charges dismissed as samples were not representative of the material discharged into the sewer and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the permissible levels of the discharged material had been exceeded; and,
  • Successfully defended chemical manufacturer charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following an explosion at its facility.

Presentations

Back to the Future - using 19th Century Jurisprudence to Assess Damages in Environmental Cases
We Need to Talk - the case for a multidisciplinary approach to designing green policy
A tale of two topics
What You Don't Know May Hurt You! Strategies for Minimizing Risk
The eBay V. Mercexchange Decision – Could it Apply in Canada?
Focus on Copyright Law
Term and Formalities
Participant with Les Wittlin, as Counsel for the creditor in The Mock Trial Review of a Mareva Injunction: The Forensic Investigator in the Hot Seat
Participant with Les Wittlin, "The Mock Trial Review of The Law of Evidence"

Publications

What Every Owner of a Registered Canadian Trademark Needs to Know
Who Owns Copyright in a Registered Plan of Survey – A Brief Update
Intellectual Property Disputes, Resolutions & Remedies
Who Owns the Copyright in a Registered Plan of Survey?
Canada's IP Strategy Announcement – A Litigator's Perspective
What's the use? Federal Court revisits the requirements for use of a trademark in association with goods
The Promise Doctrine: Invalidated for Want of Utility
The New Frontier of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Worldwide Injunction Against Google
Could Donald Trump Make America Great Again In Canada?
New Federal Court Notice on Trial Management Guidelines
Why use this slogan anywhere else?
It's Time for Your Company's Cyber-health Check-up
Canadian Chapter of Financier Worldwide Patent & Trademarks Annual Review 2016
Decrypting the iPhone - Everybody's Got Something to Hide, Except Me and My Monkey
Issues in the Preparation and Presentation of Expert Evidence: An Update
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Implications for Canadian IP Law
Competition Bureau's Draft Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines Provide Welcome Clarity on Bureau Treatment of Intellectual Property
Issues in the Preparation and Presentation of Expert Evidence
Playing for Time, or Paying for Time? – The Danger of Delay in Litigation
Make up your Mind: Damages & Costs Awarded for Wilful Trade-Mark Infringement, Failing to Fully Participate in Proceedings and Disclosing Details of Settlement Discussions
What happens when they take the "trade" out of trade-marks
Opportunity or Difficulty?
The Curious Case of GSW
Practical tips for trial
A new departure and a fresh approach: the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Combined Air
Appropriation of personality
Knockout blow to knockoffs
U.S. Supreme Court decides case brought by i4i against Microsoft
A Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man
Fast Track for Green Technologies in Canadian Patent Office
Is It Waste, Or Is It Feedstock?
Do You Have Freedom to Operate
Law Note - Danger in What Isn't: IP Law
Canada's Copyright Reform
Bill C-32 – The Copyright Modernization Act
It's Not What You Don't Know That Causes All The Trouble – It's What You Know For Sure That Isn't So
Enforcement of Letters Rogatory or Other Requests From Foreign Tribunals for Judicial Assistance in Obtaining Evidence From Parties in Ontario
Privacy in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Green Fuel or Greenwash
Will Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reports Be Private? Only Time Will Tell
Push and Pull of Copyright Reform
Amazon Appeals Adverse Ruling: Lawyers Shocked as Patent Board Makes Definitive Statement
Policy Exclusions for Faulty or Improper Design
ISOHunt Copyright Appeal Rejected
Black Liquor – Green Fuel or Greenwash?
Stem Cell Research 'Ban' Lifted in the United States
O Whisky! Soul o' Plays and Pranks! Glenora Distillers International Ltd. v. The Scotch Whisky Association , 2009 FCA 16
New Organic Rules Aim to Protect Canadian Consumers
Ruling Gives CRA Access to eBay Client Records Held Outside Canada
It Takes More Than Trees to Make a Forest
What the Harvard Mouse Can Teach Us About Patents
Law Note - Prospectuses: Disclosure and Cost Lessons - Another Look at Danier
Part 2: The Litigator's View in Kerr and Durst v. Danier Leather Inc.
We're Having a Heat Wave: The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in Kerr and Durst v. Danier Leather Inc.
The Parts of a Patent and Their Functions
Three More Pieces of the Puzzle: Pro Swing Inc. v. ELTA Golf Inc. and the Developing Law Concerning the Enforcement of Foreign Orders
Plus ça change…? The new amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations and the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations
Key Patent Law Developments in Canada in 2004

News

71 McMillan Lawyers Named in the 2020 Edition of Best Lawyers in Canada
65 McMillan Lawyers Named in the 2019 Edition of Best Lawyers in Canada
Managing Intellectual Property has once again recognized McMillan LLP among the leading Canadian firms in the 2018 edition of IP Stars
Margaret McNee recognized as Mutual Funds Lawyer of the Year, along with 58 McMillan Lawyers in the 2018 Best Lawyers in Canada Report
Peter Wells discussed the importance of having a plan for its trademarks and patents integrated into the plan for the whole business, for Financier Worldwide
61 McMillan lawyers recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada 2017
60 McMillan lawyers recognized in the 10th Edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada
McMillan LLP ranks among top Canadian patent and trademark firms in Managing Intellectual Property's IP Stars Handbook
Peter Wells authors Canada section in Financier Worldwide's Annual Review: Patents & Trademarks 2015
Make Up Your Mind: Damages & Costs Awarded for Wilful Trade-Mark Infringement
McMillan lawyers recognized in the 2015 Best Lawyers in Canada
Peter Wells discusses the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) in Embassy

Education

  • Queen's University, LLB - 1976
  • Queen's University, B.Sc. (Hons. Chemistry and Mathematics) - 1973

Year Of Call

  • Called to the Ontario bar - 1978

Practices

intellectual property
intellectual property litigation
patents
trademarks
copyright
industrial designs
licensing
confidential information
technology
cybersecurity

Industries

food, beverage and agribusiness
pharmaceuticals
applied technology
mining
aviation
transportation
manufacturing, distribution and retail

Directorships and Professional Associations

  • Advocates' Society
  • Canadian Bar Association
  • Ontario Bar Association
  • Chemical Institute of Canada
  • Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (Fellow)
  • Toronto Lawyers' Association
  • International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

Teaching Engagements

  • Special Lecturer in Patent Law (2000-2008), University of Windsor Faculty of Law, with Donald H. MacOdrum and Keith Bird.

Community Involvement

  • Member of the Board of ARCH Disability Law Centre (2006-2014; Chair 2007-2013), a specialty community legal aid clinic with a province-wide mandate to defend and advance the equality rights of people with disabilities in Ontario.
  • Clinic representative on steering committee dealing with implementation of case management software for clinic system in Ontario.

Awards & Rankings

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada (2020) as a leading lawyer in the area of Intellectual Property Law
  • Recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada (2019) as a leading lawyer in the area of Intellectual Property Law
  • Recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada (2018) as a leading lawyer in the area of Intellectual Property Law
  • Martindale-Hubbell rating: "BV® Distinguished™ 4.4 out of 5"

Media Mentions

vcard
  • Partner since 1981
  • Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada (the governing body for lawyers in Ontario) as a Specialist in Civil Litigation and Intellectual Property Law (Patents, Trade Marks, and Copyright).

For over 35 years, Peter Wells has practiced in the area of civil litigation with a principal focus on intellectual property and cases involving science and technology, such as product liability and environmental cases. He acts as trial and appeal counsel and provides advice and opinions in matters involving contracts relating to technology, intellectual property licenses and agreements including employment contracts for senior technical personnel, intellectual property in the academic setting, confidential information and trade secrets, infringement and validity issues relating to patents, trade-marks, copyrights, and industrial designs.

A number of Peter's cases have involved parallel litigation in other jurisdictions requiring co-ordination with counsel and experts in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Peter has acted as counsel in several court applications to obtain evidence in Canada for use in foreign proceedings. He also defends charges under several federal and Ontario statutes including the Food and Drugs Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Peter also acts as counsel in cases involving estates and trusts, including passing of accounts, applications for advice and directions, challenges to validity of wills, and variations of trusts.

Peter Wells has appeared as counsel in the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and at all levels of courts in Ontario, including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Peter Wells has represented clients ranging from individuals to major international corporations in a wide variety of disputes including:

Intellectual Property Litigation

  • Action to enforce settlement of a copyright claim by a designer of a movie studio;
  • Application to obtain declaration under s. 14 of the Copyright Act that estate of author owned the last twenty-five years of the copyright term (the reversionary interest) notwithstanding an outright assignment of the copyright;
  • Established the ability to bring a trade-mark infringement proceeding by the simplified application process instead of an action after a successful appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal;
  • Counsel in patent infringement actions concerning technologies such as farm equipment, abrasive materials, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and eye care products; chemicals and chemical processes; electronics and electrical systems; automated audience measurement technology, steel making, metal working and processing, lubrication technology; computers, information technology and computer software; video games; household products; personal care products; food products; biotechnology;
  • Counsel in Industrial Design cases involving garden equipment, household appliances, bathtubs and furniture;
  • Counsel in trade-mark and passing off cases including litigation concerning certification marks and official marks.

Commercial Litigation

  • Acted as counsel for a steel maker in a case brought by a manufacturer against several suppliers and subcontractors alleging that failure of products it manufactured was caused by defects in the steel supplied. There were several expert's reports which were contradictory. Peter obtained the agreement of all counsel to have all the experts attend together in a neutral metallurgical laboratory where they could ask the technician to perform tests which all them could observe together. As a result, the differences between the experts were resolved, and resulted in a conclusion that the product failures were not the result of defects in the steel, but improper processing during manufacturing;
  • Application for judicial review in the Federal Court of a decision of the Federal government approving development in a wetland area designated under the Ramsar Convention;
  • Trial of action for goods sold and delivered. Consignee of the goods alleged they had never been delivered and that the signature on the waybill was a forgery. Judgment obtained for vendor of goods by proving that the consignee had signed the waybill, but had attempted to disguise his signature;
  • Defended financial institution in wrongful dismissal action – proved that employee had engaged in money laundering for relatives;
  • Defended claim for alleged improper design of a chemical process which resulted in the plant not meeting design production levels;
  • Trial concerning a $300,000 Ferrari sold by one car dealer to a second dealer whose dealership was under the administration of its creditors. The purchasing dealer was eventually convicted of fraud regarding the transaction, but the creditors of the dealer claimed a prior security interest in the vehicles taken in trade by the selling dealer which entitled them to keep the proceeds of the sale of the Ferrari and to obtain the return of the vehicles taken in trade. Based upon the Bills of Exchange Act and the Personal Property Security Act the selling dealer was found to be entitled to retain the vehicles taken in trade, notwithstanding the security held by the creditors;
  • Acted for Russian trader of goods in Ontario proceedings brought by a bank alleging that payments to the Russian trader were the proceeds of a fraud on the bank. Co-coordinated with Swiss lawyers where parallel criminal proceedings had been instituted by the bank. Established that the majority of the payments to the Russian trader preceded the fraud on the Canadian bank resulting in the bank discontinuing proceedings against the Russian trader;
  • Application for declaration whether changes to environmental regulations had retroactive effect with respect to decommissioning process of industrial land;
  • Counsel at trial in action by homeowner whose basement was flooded with gasoline leaking from neighbouring gas bar;
  • Counsel at trial in a case on behalf of a paint maker for libel against producers of a television programme which claimed that the product was unsafe;
  • Counsel at trial in a case on behalf of a group of farmers whose land has been contaminated by emissions from a nearby factory.
  • Counsel at trial and on appeal on behalf of a gold miner that had purchased a gold mine subject to a royalty agreement that was not as described in the purchase documents. Established that the purchaser was only responsible to indemnify the seller for the royalty obligation as described in the purchase documents, the seller was responsible for performance of the royalty obligation.
  • Counsel at trial, on appeal, and successful opposition to application for leave in motion by state trading company and government minister to have the action dismissed on the basis of the State Immunity Act. The activities complained of came within the commercial activity exception.

Estates and Trusts Cases

  • Application on behalf of next-of kin to prove heirship when the deceased left no will. Application to remove Public Trustee as administrator of the estate. Passing of accounts went to the Court of Appeal, ending the Public Trustee's long standing practice of treating intestate estates it administered as "Crown Estates" on which it paid interest at 3%, despite earning a significantly higher return;
  • Application to vary a trust to permit payments out to grandchildren to finance university education. Obtained special insurance policy to reconstitute the trust in the event of certain contingencies including possibility of certain beneficiaries having issue;
  • Passing of accounts in inter vivos trust where accounts had never been passed since trust established in the 1950s. Issues of whether certain payments authorized by trust deed and the investment policy employed by trustee;
  • Acted for trustees of an estate. Question of which was the last will. Solicitor who had purchased practice from prior solicitor instructed by deceased to make minor revisions to her "last will" made revisions to last will in the file, unaware that prior solicitor had drafted a later will which was not on file;
  • Application to interpret a will, and determine the legal effect of a codicil executed in Florida that did not satisfy the formal requirements of Ontario law.

Regulatory offences

  • Defended importer of food products charged with offences under the Food and Drugs Act, and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act because he had substituted his registered trademark for the trademark appearing on the goods;
  • Defended manager of a hotel operating the hotel under a Receiving Order granted by the Ontario Superior Court on charges under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Had charges dismissed on the basis that the Crown had failed to obtain leave of the Superior Court under the Receiving Order which prohibited commencement of any proceedings without leave and that the charge was a nullity since it alleged that a demand had been made for information, which the evidence showed was not actually made until the day after the charges were laid;
  • Defended a construction company on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a worker was killed. Not guilty verdict obtained on the basis that the contractor had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such an occurrence;
  • Defended a crane company charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a bridge collapsed as a crane was being taken across the bridge. Collapse due to calculation error by the engineer supervising the works and crane company followed his directions – charges dismissed;
  • Acted for a mine charged under the under the Occupational Health and Safety Act when a used compressor flew apart. Established that all reasonable precautions had been taken as compressor had been fully overhauled before being put into service. Failure caused by a prior owner's substitution of a 60 Hz electric drive motor for the original 25 Hz motor without changing the drive pulley, causing the compressor to operate above maximum speed. Documentation for compressor did not indicate the type of electric motor;
  • Acted for manufacturer charged under municipal bylaws for discharging material into a sewer at levels above the maximum permitted. Charges dismissed as samples were not representative of the material discharged into the sewer and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the permissible levels of the discharged material had been exceeded; and,
  • Successfully defended chemical manufacturer charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following an explosion at its facility.
September 2019
What Every Owner of a Registered Canadian Trademark Needs to Know

Intellectual Property Bulletin

May 2018
Intellectual Property Disputes, Resolutions & Remedies

Volume 5, Ronald E. Dimock, Chapter 18 

May 2018
Who Owns the Copyright in a Registered Plan of Survey?

Intellectual Property Bulletin

April 2018
Canada's IP Strategy Announcement – A Litigator's Perspective

Intellectual Property Bulletin

July 2017
The Promise Doctrine: Invalidated for Want of Utility

Intellectual Property Bulletin

June 2017
Could Donald Trump Make America Great Again In Canada?

Intellectual Property Bulletin

May 2017
New Federal Court Notice on Trial Management Guidelines

Intellectual Property Bulletin

February 2017
Why use this slogan anywhere else?

Intellectual Property and Litigation Bulletin

July 2016
It's Time for Your Company's Cyber-health Check-up

Cybersecurity Bulletin

February 2016
Issues in the Preparation and Presentation of Expert Evidence: An Update
The Advocates' Quarterly
Volume 45, Number 1
February 2016
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Implications for Canadian IP Law
Intellectual Property Bulletin
April 2015
Issues in the Preparation and Presentation of Expert Evidence
The Advocates' Quarterly
Volume 44, Number 1
February 2015
Patents & Trademarks: Canada
Financier Worldwide - Annual Review 2015
September 2014
What happens when they take the "trade" out of trade-marks
Intellectual Property Bulletin
February 2014
Opportunity or Difficulty?
Intellectual Property Bulletin
November 2013
It Was Deja Vu All Over Again
The Advocate's Quarterly, Volume 42
June 2013
The Curious Case of GSW
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
November 2012
Practical tips for trial
Litigation Bulletin
May 2012
A new departure and a fresh approach: the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Combined Air
Article originally appeared in The Advocates' Quarterly
Volume 39, Number 4
April 2012
April 2012
Appropriation of personality
Intellectual Property Bulletin
July 2011
Knockout blow to knockoffs
Intellectual Property Bulletin
July 2011
We need to talk: The case for a multidisciplinary approach to designing green policy
Pure and Applied Chemistry Vol. 83, No. 7, pp. 1351-1360
June 2011
U.S. Supreme Court decides case brought by i4i against Microsoft
Intellectual Property Bulletin
May 2011
A Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man
30 Estates, Trusts & Pensions Journal 239
Winter 2010
Fast Track for Green Technologies in Canadian Patent Office
Environment, Energy & Emissions Trading Brief Winter 2010/2011
Winter 2010
Is It Waste, Or Is It Feedstock?
Environment, Energy & Emissions Trading Brief Winter 2010/2011
December 2010
Do You Have Freedom to Operate
Intellectual Property Brief Winter 2010-2011
September 2010
Law Note - Danger in What Isn't: IP Law
InBrief Fall 2010
September 2010
Canada's Copyright Reform
InBrief Fall 2010/Lexology
June 2010
Bill C-32 – The Copyright Modernization Act
Intellectual Property Alert
March 2010
Privacy in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
InBrief Spring 2010 
January 2010
Green Fuel or Greenwash
InBrief Winter 2010 
December 18, 2009
Will Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reports Be Private? Only Time Will Tell
Lang Michener LLP InBrief Spring 2010 (under a different title) and Environment, Energy and Emissions Trading Brief Winter 2009/2010
October 2009
Push and Pull of Copyright Reform
Kauth, Glenn, Canadian Lawyer , October 2009.
September 21, 2009
Amazon Appeals Adverse Ruling: Lawyers Shocked as Patent Board Makes Definitive Statement
Melnitzer, Julius, Law Times
Fall 2009
Policy Exclusions for Faulty or Improper Design
Lang Michener LLP InBrief Fall 2009 and Corportate Insurance Brief Fall 2009, under a different title
August 31, 2009
ISOHunt Copyright Appeal Rejected
Harris, Kelly, Canadian Lawyer InHouse
August 13, 2009
Black Liquor – Green Fuel or Greenwash?
Lang Michener Environment, Energy & Emissions Trading Brief Summer 2009 & Environmental LAW360
July 15, 2009
Stem Cell Research 'Ban' Lifted in the United States
Lang Michener Intellectual Property Brief Summer 2009
July 2009
O Whisky! Soul o' Plays and Pranks! Glenora Distillers International Ltd. v. The Scotch Whisky Association , 2009 FCA 16
Toronto Law Journal, published by the Toronto Lawyers Association,Vol. 4, No. 6
December 8, 2008
New Organic Rules Aim to Protect Canadian Consumers
Harris, Kelley, Canadian Lawyer In House
November 18, 2008
Ruling Gives CRA Access to eBay Client Records Held Outside Canada
Harris, Kelly, Canadian Lawyer In House
Spring 2008
What the Harvard Mouse Can Teach Us About Patents
NOC: News of Course , published by CAPRA
Winter 2008
Part 2: The Litigator's View in Kerr and Durst v. Danier Leather Inc.
Lang Michener Securities Brief Winter 2007
2008
We're Having a Heat Wave: The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in Kerr and Durst v. Danier Leather Inc.
Lang Michener, Part 1: The Solicitor's View in Kerr and Durst v. Danier Leather Inc.
October 2007
The Parts of a Patent and Their Functions
NOC: News of Course , published by CAPRA, Fall 2007
December 2005
Key Patent Law Developments in Canada in 2004
Lang Michener Intellectual Property Brief
October 20, 2010
Back to the Future - using 19th Century Jurisprudence to Assess Damages in Environmental Cases
Environment Law Lecture University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
August 15, 2010
We Need to Talk - the case for a multidisciplinary approach to designing green policy
3rd International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry Conference on Green Chemistry
January 14, 2010
A tale of two topics
LSUC Intellectual Property Law Year in Review, January 14, 2010 in Toronto and January 15, 2010 in Ottawa
October 22, 2008
What You Don't Know May Hurt You! Strategies for Minimizing Risk
Lang Michener 5 O'Clock Lecture Series
April 14, 2008
The eBay V. Mercexchange Decision – Could it Apply in Canada?
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 42 nd Spring Meeting, Gatineau, Quebec
February 28, 2008
Focus on Copyright Law
The Intellectual Property Law Primer Series presented by the Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
August 22, 2006
Term and Formalities
McGill-IPIC Copyright Course, Montréal
May 8, 2006
Participant with Les Wittlin, as Counsel for the creditor in The Mock Trial Review of a Mareva Injunction: The Forensic Investigator in the Hot Seat
ACFI 8th Annual Fraud Conference, Toronto
May 9, 2005
Participant with Les Wittlin, "The Mock Trial Review of The Law of Evidence"
ACFI 7th Annual Fraud Conference, Toronto