Education: 2000: J.D., University of Toronto Faculty of Law; 1997: B.A., McGill University.

Career in Brief: 2012–present: Independent Arbitrator; 2002–2012: White & Case LLP (2011–2012: Counsel; 2002–2011: Associate); 2001: Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Division, Legal Intern; 2000–2001: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Articling Student-at-Law.

What do you enjoy most about serving as an arbitrator? Arbitration is not a cookie-cutter practice. I appreciate having a diverse caseload, both with respect to the commercial matters in dispute and, because I practice internationally, the cultures and legal systems that are involved. This variety keeps me engaged and always learning something new.

I also enjoy the case management process because it requires continuous balancing of predictability and flexibility to achieve fairness and efficiency, no matter what impasses may arise. Where there are differing procedural expectations at the outset of a case, I like discussing with counsel and co-arbitrators how best to tailor the conduct of the proceedings. When I am presented with an agreed schedule, it is satisfying to flag unanticipated issues or inefficiencies.

What are the greatest challenges in chairing an arbitration tribunal? It takes significantly more discipline to ensure that procedural decisions and awards are made in a timely fashion when acting as chair rather than as a sole arbitrator. This is especially true in international cases where communicating in real-time may be hampered by conflicting time zones and travel schedules.

As a sole arbitrator, I must manage only my schedule. By contrast, as chair, it is often necessary to shift my calendar to accommodate my co-arbitrators and avoid unnecessary delays. Of course, being flexible also helps to build goodwill among the arbitration panel, which is essential for productive deliberations.

What have been the most significant developments in commercial arbitration during your time as an arbitrator? In domestic arbitration practice, arbitrators are increasingly willing to hear and decide dispositive motions. Although these motions remain disfavored, there is greater recognition of the arbitrator's authority to dispose of meritless claims and narrow the issues at an early stage of an arbitration.

In international arbitration, we have seen significant growth in regional arbitral institutions, especially in Asia, along with widespread adoption of emergency arbitration and expedited arbitration rules across regions. Additionally, there is more emphasis on transparency and diversity in arbitrator selection, leading to new initiatives such as Arbitrator Intelligence and Global Arbitration Review's Arbitrator Research Tool.

Practitioners are also more aware of the need to assess and manage cybersecurity risks. I am a member of the Working Group on Cybersecurity in Arbitration formed by the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, the CPR Institute, and the New York City Bar Association. The Working Group launched a Draft Cybersecurity Protocol for International Arbitration in April 2018 to help preserve party expectations of confidentiality and privacy. The Protocol is a risk-based framework for making decisions about reasonable cybersecurity practices in the context of each case. I hope that the arbitration community continues to focus on this important issue going forward.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about arbitration? I wish attorneys would dispel the myth that arbitrators avoid actually resolving disputes by splitting the difference between the parties. To the contrary, research shows that most arbitration awards tend to favor one party over the other. In my experience, arbitrators' decisions are not arbitrary, but based on thoughtful consideration of the applicable law and contract.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Counsel should avoid the kitchen-sink approach of arguing every possible claim or defense and instead focus on the strongest arguments. The former approach diverts the tribunal's attention to minor issues, and needlessly drives up costs and lengthens the proceedings. Counsel can also gain credibility with the tribunal by addressing the weaknesses in their case directly.

Additionally, I encourage counsel to take advantage of the opportunity to present pre-hearing submissions and witness statements, rather than holding back arguments for the evidentiary hearing or post-hearing submissions. If a tribunal has a good understanding of the case going into a hearing, it can engage with counsel and witnesses more effectively at the hearing and focus on the issues that matter most.

Do you require a preliminary conference and, if so, do you hold it in-person or by telephone? I do require preliminary conferences and typically hold them by telephone. Parties are always welcome to join in addition to their counsel.

The key purpose of a preliminary conference is to discuss what procedures and timetable are appropriate for the case. But it is also essential for me to set the right tone for the arbitration and to assess intangibles, including how well counsel will be able to cooperate, counsel's experience with arbitration practice, and any cultural sensitivities.

When I chair a tribunal, having telephone calls before and after the preliminary conference with my co-arbitrators (particularly if I do not already know them) are similarly important to establish a good rapport.

How best can counsel prepare to address both procedural and substantive issues at the preliminary conference? After reviewing the case file, I usually send a letter to counsel inviting them to meet and confer about various procedural and logistical issues relating to the conduct of the arbitration and to report back to me before the preliminary conference about any points of agreement or disagreement. Pre-conference case management proposals make the preliminary conference more efficient, and ensure that we spend our time during the conference on the issues that matter most.

When I chair a tribunal, I discuss the proposals with my co-arbitrators before the conference to ensure that we are on the same page about what additional information we need from the parties and can begin the case speaking with one voice.

At the conference, counsel should be prepared to justify their proposed approach with appropriate reference to the merits or damages in the case. Although the preliminary conference is not the time for counsel to plead their cases, counsel should highlight any factual or legal complexities that the tribunal should consider when determining the conduct of the arbitration.

For example, in a dispute over a development agreement, a brief overview of the technical issues in dispute may provide necessary context to persuade an arbitrator that a witness should not be permitted to testify by video conference.

How does the use of expert witnesses differ in arbitration as opposed to litigation? Unlike litigation, there is no voir dire in arbitration practice, nor must expert witnesses be qualified under Daubert standards. Additionally, it is unlikely that counsel will have the opportunity to depose an expert before an evidentiary hearing.

It is typical, however, for experts to exchange reports or witness statements before a hearing. Experts in arbitration will also stand for cross-examination, though in some complex cases, tribunals may customize expert testimony through witness conferencing or "hot-tubbing." This is a process where two or more experts testify at the same time to allow the tribunal to understand points of contention on an issue-by-issue basis.