Please view the following video, in addition to the information on this webpage, for information about the academic year 2020-2021's moot:

We have every intention of running our world-class mooting program for 2020-21, but at this time we wait to hear from different moot competitions to know if they intend to hold a moot. We will continue to update this page as information is made available to us.

Participating in a competitive moot can be one of the most rewarding experiences at law school.  The Common Law Section offers a wide selection of moots covering different subject areas.  While most moots test appellate advocacy skills, others require participants to demonstrate their abilities in trial, arbitration or other settings.  

The moots in the upcoming 2020-2021 academic year are selected from the following list and will be announced during the moot information session. Budgetary restraints means we may not participate in all of the listed moots every year: content is subject to change

*Updates on IP Advocacy & Mooting


  • CML3165J  - Arnup Cup (Criminal law – Leading to Sopinka)
  • CML3120J3 - Walsh Family Law Moot (Profs. Bakht and Gruben to send information in Fall)
  • CML3120J4 - Julius Alexander Isaac Diversity Moot
  • CML3120J5 - BowmanTax Moot
  • CML3140J  - Canadian Corporate/Securities Competition (postponed for 2020-21)
  • CML 3520 - Competition Law Moot (postponed for 2020-21)
  • CML3923J - Coupe Laskin/Laskin Moot (Constitutional/Administrative law)
  • CML3120FA - Foreign Direct Investment Moot
  • CML3120WP - ICC Mediation Competition - International Mediation Advocacy Competition
  • CML3120J200 - ICC Criminal Law Moot
  • CML3125J  - National Aboriginal Law Moot: Kawaskimhon "Speaking With Knowledge"
  • CML3142J2 - Harold G. Fox Intellectual Property Moot
  • CML 3142W3 - Intellectual Property Advocacy: Copyright Policy-making Moot
  • CML3142F100 - Oxford International Intellectual Property
  • CML3922J  - Tribunal-école international Philip C. Jessup/Philip C. Jessup International Moot (Public International law)
  • CML3119D - Walsh Negotiation Competition in Family Law (Prof. Rockman to send information in Fall)
  • CML3128W - Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot
  • CML3132J - Willms & Shier Environmental Law Moot (postponed for 2020-21)
  • CML3127J  - Wilson Moot Competition (Equality s. 15)
  • CML3139J - WTO/ELSA WTO Law Moot


  • CML3514J - Concours Charles-Rousseau (Droit international public)
  • CML3515J - Coupe Guy-Guérin (Droit pénal (Arnup, mais en français) – conduisant à Sopinka
  • CML3520 HA - Concours Michel Bastarache (Droits linguistiques)
  • CML3520 - Droit de la Concurrence
  • CML3524J - Tribunal-école Moncton-Ottawa (Droit privé)

General moots tryout

The tryouts on Sept 17-18 are for the following teams. Look out for separate announcements for other moots:

Bowman Tax Moot

Copyright Practicum

Diversity Moot

Fox Moot



Walsh Family Law Moot

Vis Moot


Separate Tryouts

ICC Criminal Law Moot

The uOttawa team will compete in the Regional Round on March 13-14, 2021. Further details are available at Two Canadian teams will proceed to the International Round in June 2021. Further details are available at

Please email your expression of interest to by Friday, September 18 at 5:00pm and attach one pdf containing the following documents (in this order):

1. Cover letter indicating your previous exposure to international criminal law and public international law (and specifically whether you have taken the upper-year seminar CML 3130, “International Criminal Law”)

2. CV (résumé)

3. Most recent law school transcript (student copy is acceptable)

4. Writing sample (in English – 2 pages max)

Depending on your previous exposure to ICL and PIL, you may be invited to try-out via Zoom on Saturday, September 19. The try-out problem will be included with the invitation.

Questions? Contact


French language moots, including Laskin and French language competition law team

Arnup Moot (Sopinka)




How to tryout

If you intend to tryout for both English and French moots, you must sign up separately for English and French tryout times and dates.

For English moots, sign up here:

For French moots, please consult the French version of this page.

Once you sign up for time and date please send the following documents, in one pdf file, to Prof. Anthony Daimsis ( [English moots only].

Your one pdf file must include in the following order:

  1. Cover letter indicating the moots for which you will tryout, in order of preference.
  2. CV (resume)
  3. Most recent law school transcript (student copy acceptable)
  4. Writing sample (in language of moot - 2 page max.)
  5. Current class schedule (course name and code), indicating all class times (start and finish)

General Moot tryout problem for 2020-2021:

The Coca-Cola Company (CCC) offers its products to a wide range of buyers, from national grocery chains like Loblaws to local neighbourhood corner stores like the one run by Henry Dillard, the Tasty Corner (TC).

To simplify its business, CCC uses pre-printed form contracts that contain its standard terms. One of these terms, clause 12, is a contract termination clause allowing CCC to terminate the agreement, with 30 days’ notice, for any reason. If the other party wishes to contest the termination, it may do so only via arbitration in the province or state where the complaining party resides. Clause 12 explains that CCC will cover reasonable arbitration costs, but only after the hearing and only after the arbitrator releases the decision to the parties.

The Pepsi-Cola Company has similar products to CCC but charges slightly more per product. Its contracts, however, do not include a term similar to clause 12 of the CCC contract.

Henry Dillard finally decided on CCC because the price point per product offered him a more considerable profit margin, and he preferred CCC products. But before Henry Dillard signed the contract with CCC to receive 500 bottles of 600ml Coca-Cola bottles, 400 bottles of Dasani 500ml plain water bottles, and 200 bottles of 600ml Sprite bottles, he reached out to a local family law firm, just steps from TC. He met with lawyer Tory Martin, who often shopped at TC to pick up coffee and treats for the office.

The meeting between Henry Dillard and Tory Martin took approximately one hour. During the meeting, Tory went over the contract and explained its terms to Henry. Tory charged $300 for the consultation and explanations. Tory conceded to Henry that the contract terms look straightforward but that she's not exactly a commercial contracts specialist. Nevertheless, Henry was satisfied with the advice to sign the contract.

The signing meeting between Henry and a CCC representative was cordial. Henry forthrightly declared (perhaps to appear like an experienced businessperson) that he looked over the contract with his lawyer and anticipated a fruitful relationship with CCC. Feeling confident enough to sign the contract (and knowing that a corner store that doesn't carry Coca-Cola products is unusual), Henry Dillard signed the contract with CCC on TC’s behalf.

Three months into the contract, CCC notifies TC that it is terminating the contract, effective 35 days from TC receiving the notice of termination. Although CCC offered no reason for the termination in the notice, Henry called CCC and was told that the reason CCC was terminating the agreement was that another corner store was opening down the street from TC. This corner store forms part of an extensive network of corner stores (LNC) across the province and insists that its stores have exclusive rights to sell CCC products within geographical areas. Unfortunately, due to TC's proximity to the new store, CCC could not sell to both, so chose to sell only to the new store. A sound, if not cold, business decision.

Henry Dillard is friends with a few other independently owned neighbourhood corner stores that have all received similar termination notices from CCC. It turns out LNC is making a push to “corner” the neighbourhood corner store business. Henry wants to band together with these other victims (strength in numbers) to form a class action against CCC but remembers clause 12 in his contract.

Henry read about a recent decision from Canada’s Supreme Court in Uber v Heller, 2020 SCC 16 and wonders if the majority's opinion, in which it relied on unconscionability, might work to his advantage to strike out clause 12.


Instructions for the tryout: Please argue for or against whether clause 12 in the CCC contract should withstand the majority's unconscionability opinion in the Uber v Heller.

Back to top