Daniel Urbas

Daniel Urbas

Daniel Urbas is an experienced litigator, arbitrator and mediator with over 25 years of dispute resolution experience. He has earned a variety of repeat, annual peer recognitions including “Leading Lawyer” in “Commercial Arbitration” in the 2019 edition of the Lexpert ® / American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada, “Most Frequently Recommended” in the 2019 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory for Commercial Arbitration, “Thought Leader” in 2019 edition of Who’s Who Legal – Litigation and AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®.
 

Daniel focuses exclusively on serving as an arbitrator and mediator.  As arbitrator, Daniel serves as a sole arbitrator, as chair or as party-nominated member of three (3) member arbitration tribunals. His appointments have been made by individual parties, by the parties jointly on consent, by court orders and by various administering institutions including ICC, CCAC and IATA.
 

A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”) based in London, UK, as well as a founding Director of the CIArb’s Canada Branch, Daniel is listed on various rosters including general commercial rosters organized by the ICDR, CIETAC and BCICAC and on more specialized, industry/activity specific rosters such as the Canada Transport Agency’s roster.

 

Daniel’s dispute resolution experience spans a variety of commercial and civil matters, intellectual property (including anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting litigation) and information technologies, energy (wind, bio), natural resources (mining, forestry, fishing), shareholder disputes, real estate and lease disputes, product liability, construction, distribution and franchise, Aboriginal law matters including treaty and land claims litigation and dispute resolution of agreements relating to governance and natural resource development on native peoples’ territories.

 

He handled trial and appellate advocacy, as well as urgent and extraordinary applications. He has appeared before the provincial and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as before arbitration tribunals and various administrative tribunals. Fluently bilingual in both English and French with degrees in both Common Law and Civil Law, Daniel is an active member of the Barreau du Québec, the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society of British Columbia.  At his former national law firm, up until June 2017, Daniel served as Regional Leader of the International Trade Litigation and Arbitration group and Regional Leader of the Intellectual Property Litigation group. Formerly, Daniel was also Regional Leader of the Commercial Litigation group and National Leader of the Intellectual Property Litigation group.




Contact Daniel Urbas

Website: urbas.ca

Articles and Video:

Canada - Appointing Authority’s Breach of Appointment Provisions Raise No Reasonable Apprehension of Bias (10/19/20)
In Grey v. Whitefish Lake First Nation, Justice Cecily Y. Strickland dismissed challenges to an arbitrator’s decision, applying correctness as the standard of review for questions of procedural fairness, including those which encompass issues of bias. Despite the appointing authority’s breach of the “clear and unambiguous” regulations for appointing the arbitrator, the breach was not raised on appeal and did not affect the procedural fairness of the arbitration.

Canada – Agreement Giving One Party Privileged Position to Designate Arbitrator Subject to “Blue-Pencil” Severance (10/13/20)
In Caron v. 7834101 Canada Inc. (Triviom à Charlemagne), Justice Stéphane Lacoste severed a portion of an agreement to arbitrate which violated the rule against places one party in a privileged position with respect to the designation of the arbitrator. But rather than declare null the entire agreement to arbitrate, Lacoste J. struck the provision, likening the relief to the “blue-pencil” severance explained and applied in Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc.

Canada – Court Denies Tenant Relief from Forfeiture where Tenant Disregards Arbitration (10/08/20)
In Hunt’s Transport Limited v. Eagle Street Industrial GP Inc., Justice David A. Broad refused to exercise his discretion to grant a commercial tenant relief from forfeiture given the tenant’s refusal to abide by its obligation to continue performance during arbitration of its disputes with the landlord.

Canada – Court Acknowledges Commercial Interest in Arbitration as Alternative to Court Litigation (10/07/20)
In Hannam v. Medicine Hat School District, Alberta’s Court of Appeal assessed the practical significance of its earlier five-judge panel decision in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, which considered the benefits of summary judgment. In doing so, the majority and dissent both commented on the promised benefits of arbitration in contrast to court litigation, and this article highlights the relevant passages to illustrate those contemporary comments.

Canada – Loss to Bar, Gain to Bench - Madam Justice Jasmin Ahmad, Q.C. (09/11/20)
A big change in Canada's arbitration and litigation environment with yesterday’s nomination of Madam Justice Jasmin Ahmad to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Despite the loss to the arbitration and litigation bar, her nomination is a great gain to the bench.

Canada – Stay Application Lacks Evidence Required to Demonstrate Overlap/Status of Duplicative Proceedings (09/11/20)
Justice Susan L. Bercov had to decide whether to exercise her discretion to stay duplicative proceedings involving administrative action taken in two Canadian provinces. Justice Bercov declined to exercise her discretion due to the applicant’s failure to meet his evidentiary burden to establish the overlap and status of the duplicative proceedings.

Canada - Exceptional Case Grants Appeal Court Jurisdiction Over Single Judge’s Decision Mistakenly Denying Leave to Appeal (09/08/20)
This article discusses the case of McEwen (Re) (2020 ONCA 511), where Ontario’s Court of Appeal repurposed an exception, developed in its 1996 decision involving leave to appeal an arbitration award, which permitted a three-member panel to review the decision of a single judge denying leave to appeal.

Canada: Court Suspends Own Process, Requires Parties Take Arbitration-Related Steps Prior to Decision on Stay (08/31/20)
This article discusses the case of Syndicat de la copropriété Clark et Fleury v. Généreux, where Justice Mark Phillips issued a sequence of orders requiring the parties’ to exhaust the steps related to each of their competing dispute resolution procedural approaches.

Canada – Anti-Suit Injunction Restrains Party Bound by Ontario Arbitration Award (08/24/20)
This article discusses the case of Borschel v. Borschel where a civil court in Ontario, Canada, issued an anti-suit injunction restraining a party to arbitration awards and subject to Ontario law, from pursuing parallel proceedings in a jurisdiction within the United States.

Canada – Injunction and Increased Costs Ordered Where Arbitral Award Funds Were Core of Dispute (08/05/20)
Arbitrator highlights the importance of Mareva injunctions as tools in civil litigation to address when a defendant utilizes the time lag between a claim being prosecuted and the judgment by the court to divest its assets which could be used to satisfy that judgment.

Canada – States’ Submissions Qualify as “Subsequent Practice” in Investor-State Arbitration (08/03/20)
In the United Mexican States v. Burr, Madam Justice Bernadette Dietrich accepted that legal submissions by parties to the NAFTA can qualify as “subsequent practice” but that the facts fell short of meeting the standard of a “clear, well-understood, agreed common position”.

Canada – Parties can give court role to examine merits of settlement but not to examine merits of identical consent award (07/27/20)
Arbitrator concludes that the homologation sought by Plaintiffs could not allow for debate on the merits despite agreement by the parties, noting that it would up to the judge at the merits hearing to decide, if necessary, whether to homologate an arbitral award which does not settle the existing dispute.

Canada: Interim Procedural Orders “Immune from Review” During Arbitration Even When Titled “Award” (07/20/20)
A Canadian arbitrator’s use of one title instead of another – decision vs award vs interim procedural order – is not decisive of the status of the decision.

Canada: Refusal to Adjourn Hearing Respects Due Process if Recognition/Enforcement Conditions Present (07/18/20)
Despite disagreement whether a party had counsel of record and that party's choice not to be 'present', the Court held that the party seeking adjournment suffered no prejudice because all the conditions in section 49 of the Arbitration Act were 'present' and 'there was no reason to think the outcome would have been different had an adjournment been granted'.