Worrying about the chemical kinetics of urea decomposition seems like an awkward "middle" level of fidelity.
On the one hand, it might be reasonable to simply skip the urea decomposition step and assume a feed of NH3 and HNCO, or even simply NH3. This makes sense if, for example, you are simulating SCR over a catalyst above a certain temperature threshold (say ~250 C), where the system is generally designed such that the urea is reasonably decomposed (and, in the NH3 case, hydrolized) before it hits the catalyst and the reactions that are really of interest begin.
On the other hand, if you do need to model decomposition for whatever reason, one must ask how the urea got into the flue gas stream. If, as is typical, it was injected in aqueous solution, it's reasonable to assume that droplet evaporation is at least as important as chemical kinetics. Aqueous urea droplets in flue gas are practically their own field of study, involving heat transfer to the droplet, evaporation, and potentially kinetics in both liquid and gas phases, with the properties of the liquid changing as water evaporates (I recall at least one mention of droplets developing a hard shell of urea as the water on the surface evaporates, although I suspect that the conditions to do this would be quite particular). So far as I am aware, CANTERA does not include a means of modelling any of this except the kinetics.
If you're modelling a different urea delivery approach, I am sure that whatever delivery mechanism you have in mind has its own complexities - potentially less challenging, but also with less prior study.
In short, you might not need to model urea decomposition, but if you do, the kinetics may be the least of your worries.