Professional Background

Nicholas is an Associate in the Construction and Infrastructure Law Group at Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP. Experienced in both traditional litigation and alternative forms of dispute resolution, Nicholas is skilled at resolving complex legal issues.

His practice focuses on resolving challenging disputes for large-scale and international construction projects, including in respect of mass transit, border crossings, and wind farms, as well as healthcare and commercial manufacturing facilities. He is experienced in guiding clients and subject matter experts through the dispute resolution process, and frequently assists in providing advice regarding strategic dispute management. He has also assisted clients with the preparation and negotiation of contract documents for construction projects, including bespoke and standard form contracts.

Nicholas has been recognized by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Canada (ADRIC) as a Qualified Arbitrator.


  • Called to the Ontario Bar, 2019 
  • Master of Laws., University of Toronto, 2018
  • Juris Doctor, University of Toronto, 2017
  • Master of Arts, University of Toronto, 2017
  • Bachelor of Arts, University of Toronto, 2014


  • Member, ADR Institute of Canada
  • Member, Canadian Bar Association
  • Member, Ontario Bar Association
  • Member, The Advocates’ Society
  • Member, Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society

Served as part of the legal team representing:

  • An engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor with respect to claims arising out of a $1.3 billion wind energy project in Northern Ontario
  • An owner in relation to a multi-billion dollar cross-border transportation infrastructure project.
  • A joint venture in relation to a $100 million contract for the construction of a public market building.
  • A surety bonding company in relation to multiple performance bond and labour and material payment bond claims arising out of a transportation infrastructure project in Ontario.
  • A municipality in Ontario in relation to claims arising out of the design and construction of a light rail project.
  • A general contractor with respect to claims arising from the renovation of an existing healthcare facility in Ontario.
  • A Crown agency in relation to claims arising out of the design and construction of multiple light rail projects.
  • A general contractor specializing in affordable housing, with respect to a $60 million municipal housing project.
  • A specialty drilling subcontractor with respect to the construction of a highway overpass and associated infrastructure.
  • A general contractor with respect to the design and construction of a $100 million long-term care facility.
  • C0-author, “Uber v Heller – The Evolution of Unconscionability,” July, 2020
  • Co-author, “Construction Act to be Exempt from Suspension of Procedural Time Limits,” April, 2020
  • Co-author, “COVID-19 – Health and Safety Implications,” March, 2020
  • “CM Callow Inc. v. Zollinger: The Relevance of Good Faith in Terminating Construction Contracts,” October, 2019
  • “Two Views of the Cathedral: Civilian Approaches, Reasonable Expectations, and the Puzzle of Good Faith’s Past and Future,” (2019) 44:2 Queen’s Law Journal 127
  • “Class Proceedings and the Future of Boilerplate in Consumer Contracts: Unconscionability as a Common Law Solution to Class Action Avoidance,” (2018) 13:2 Canadian Class Action Review 227
  • “The New Neighbour Principle: Reasonable Expectations, Relationality, and Good Faith in Pre-Contractual Negotiations,” (2017) 60:1 Can Bus LJ 94
  • “Dead or Alive? The Future of Entire Agreement Clauses,” (2016) 1 J Can C Construction Law 155, co-authored with Markus Rotterdam
  • “Nothing to Fear: Judicial Restraint Post-Bhasin,” (2016) 32:6 Construction Law Letter
  • “Case Comment on Yorkwest Plumbing v Nortown,” Ontario Bar Association Newsletter (May 27, 2016), online: