The issue will be whether or not a team does in fact possess a veto. The NHL claims no single team does have such a veto but MLSE begs to differ.
Per the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) report in March 2008 following its investigation:
OTTAWA, March 31, 2008 — National Hockey League policies on ownership transfers and franchise relocations do not contravene the Competition Act, the Competition Bureau announced today after the conclusion of an investigation.
The Bureau's inquiry focused on whether the NHL's policies regarding transfers of ownership and relocation of franchises constituted an anticompetitive practice.
"We are confident that the NHL's policies are not anticompetitive," said Richard Taylor, Deputy Commissioner of Competition. "We conducted an extensive investigation which established that the NHL's policies were directed at furthering legitimate interests of the NHL, and not to prevent competition. This concludes our investigation of the matter."
...
The Bureau's investigation established that under the NHL's rules and procedures, the proposed relocation of a franchise to Southern Ontario would require a majority vote by the NHL Board of Governors. The NHL would not permit any single team to exercise a veto to prevent a franchise from entering into Southern Ontario.
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02641.html
For details see:
Competition Bureau Concludes Examination into National Hockey League Franchise Ownership Transfer and Relocation Policies - Technical Backgrounder - March 31, 2008
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02640.html
However it appears the CCB was not apprised of a 2006 letter from MLSE asserting it possessed a veto (see below).
Subsequently in September 2009 the CCB indicated that if the information previously supplied by the NHL that there was no single team veto was not in fact accurate... and Toronto has maintained it does have a veto, then it would be prepared to re-open the investigation.
In response to the NHL's assertions that relocation requires a majority vote by the league's board of governors, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment sent a letter dated Nov. 29, 2006, to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman claiming that the team holds a
de facto veto. That letter was filed by Balsillie's lawyers with the court.
"The Toronto Maple Leafs do not agree that the relocation of a club into their home territory would be subject to a majority vote. They continue to believe a unanimous vote would be required," the letter said. "The Maple Leafs ... reserve all rights to take whatever actions are necessary to protect their exclusive rights to their home territory."
Earlier in the (bankruptcy) court proceedings (in Phoenix), a 2006 letter to the NHL from the Maple Leafs was filed in which the Leafs claimed to have veto power over the arrival of another NHL team in southern Ontario. Balsillie's lawyers' argument that that veto claim is essentially behind the NHL's opposition to the BlackBerry billionaire's bid caught the attention of the competition watchdog.
"We are concerned," Taylor said. "We are looking at all the paperwork that's coming out of the proceedings and we will take action if we believe that the veto that Toronto thinks they have is exercised and blocks a team. The exercise of the veto that effectively blocked a team from moving would raise concerns for us and would be something we would investigate."
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/694707
There was an earlier investigation in 2006 launched by the CCB but it reportedly was halted.
In July, 2006, the bureau launched a similar investigation into the NHL's relocation practices and expressed interest in "how those procedures might be applied with respect to a proposed relocation to southern Ontario," sources say.
However, after meeting with NHL officials to discuss the territorial rights, the watchdog discontinued its probe and recommended against further action last December.
According to insiders familiar with events, the bureau made the decision because the NHL provided written assurance that while "relocations generally had required a unanimous board vote," the league has enacted by-law 36 in response to a series of U.S. court decisions in the 1980s that ruled sports league franchise relocation rules were in violation of American anti-trust laws.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2ee34bd7-d43a-4cf5-bd9c-4aa1ccdbecf7
An earlier complaint in 1993 from Peter Pocklington who had threatened to move the Oilers to Hamilton was in the process of being investigated when Pocklington renewed the lease in Edmonton.
In 1993, the competition bureau conducted a preliminary review of the NHL's relocation practices when Peter Pocklington, owner of the Edmonton Oilers, threatened to transfer the team to Hamilton unless he could renegotiate his arena lease.
According to a "preliminary" conclusion to lawyers representing Mr. Pocklington dated April, 23, 1993, the federal watchdog declared that if the NHL followed the transfer criteria outlined in its bylaws and an application for relocation receives less than the required three-quarters vote, there wouldn't be any concerns under Canada's competition act.
However, the bureau expressed "concern" over the "use of the home territory veto as it could be invoked to solely protect Buffalo or Toronto from the threat of local intraband competition."
The regulator wrote in its confidential opinion that any analysis of the NHL's relocation practices "would turn on the specific home territory veto" -- the veto afforded to individual teams in section 4.3. "This provision has the clear effect of precluding or dissuading franchise mobility to markets with existing franchises," declared the opinion. "If the transfer is prevented by either Toronto or Buffalo through the exercising of their veto rights this may raise an issue" under sections of the Competition Act's civil provisions.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2ee34bd7-d43a-4cf5-bd9c-4aa1ccdbecf7