Moots for 2009-2010

ENGLISH MOOTS

• GALE CUP Recent SCC simulation
• HAROLD G. FOX Intellectual Property
• ICC International Commercial Mediation
• KAWASKIMHON National Aboriginal Law
• WILSON  Equality s. 15
• WILLEM C. VIS International Commercial Arbitration
• WTO/ELSA WTO Law

BILINGUAL MOOTS

• ARNUP Cup/SOPINKA Cup/GUY GUERIN Criminal law
• PHILIP C. JESSUP Public International law
• LASKIN Constitutional/Administrative law

FRENCH MOOTS

• MONCTON OTTAWA Private law
• ROUSSEAU Public International law

 

* A Mooting information session will be held September 9, 2009 at 11:30am-1pm in Fauteux 232. This is an opportunity to learn more about our moot program, as well as the subject matter of the moots that are offered. Information on how to tryout for any or the moots will also be covered at this session.

How to tryout 

If you wish to tryout for one of our moot teams, you must submit an application package addressed to Prof. Anthony Daimsis, by Thursday September 17, 2009 at the common law secretariat. This package must include the following:

• Cover letter indicating the three moots (only three) for which you will tryout, in order of preference
• CV (resume)
• Most recent law school transcript (student copy acceptable)
• Writing sample (in language of moot - 2 page max.)
• Current course schedule

The problem that students must argue will be available from the secretariat on Monday September 14th after 1pm and not before.

Problem:

BILL C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act, seeks to create, via section 4, a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. It is questioned whether such an attempt by the Federal government is justified under the national concern doctrine, or whether it violates the division of powers doctrine by intruding upon provincial powers over property and civil rights. Please provide arguments in support of Bill C-35 using the national concern doctrine, or against Bill C-35 under a division of powers analysis. Although your presentation need not reference any sources aside from Bill C-35, you may find the following sources of some help: For those arguing against on a division of powers footing, the following might be helpful:

• General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641
• MacDonald v. Vapour, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134.

For those exploring a national concern doctrine approach the following might be helpful:
 

• R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401
• R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213 

You will have between 5-7 minutes to present your arguments and you may expect questions from the bench.”

 

Mooting

Competitive Moots