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 2018-2019 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:


  • 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
  • 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)
  • CML3119C - 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
  • 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
  • CML3524J - Tribunal-école Moncton-Ottawa (Droit privé)
  • CML3520 HA - Concours Michel Bastarache (Droits linguistiques)

This year's Mooting information session takes place Tuesday September 11, 2018 at 11:30, room FTX 416. 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 most moots will also be covered at this session.


General moots tryout

September 20/21/22: Laskin, Guy Guerin, Charles-Rousseau, Moncton, Bowman, Corporate Securities, WTO, Wilson.

How to tryout

If you intend to tryout for both English and French moots, you must submit separate English and French packages (if you intend to apply to both English and French moots) following the instructions.

Tryout packages must be left at FTX 237 by 4:00pm September 17, 2018. English moot tryout packages (WTO, Bowman, Corporate Securities, Wilson) must be clearly addressed to Prof. Anthony Daimsis and French moot tryout packages (Laskin - bilingual moot, Guy Guerin, Charles-Rousseau, Moncton) must be clearly addressed to Prof. Denis Boivin.

We do not accept electronic submissions.
Packages 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)

We intend to hold tryouts on September 13, 14, 20, 21 and 22. We make no exceptions and no make-up times. We will post sign up sheets on September 11. You may not reserve spots in advance. Sign up sheets for this year's English moots can be found on Prof. Daimsis's office door (Brooks 431).

General Moot tryout problem

Balung Boutique (“Balung”) is an Ontario based fashion company that operates throughout North and South America. On 31 March, Balung received a flyer from Skedel Styles (“Skedel”), an Ontario fabric supplier, inviting recipients to visit Skedel’s website. The website’s address was printed on the flyer. Bailey, Balung’s Purchasing Manager, visited the website that day.

The website displayed Skedel’s available line of goods along with prices and associated discounts. Many of the items were attractive and at reasonable prices. Bailey was particularly impressed with Skedel’s design of a skull printed on cold weather wicking fabric, which Bailey believed perfect for a new line of Canadian athletic clothing Balung was set to launch. Balung told Skedel that it wished to order a “test” amount with the intention that if the test is successful, it would increase the contract order.

Balung and Skedel entered into the following contract (only relevant terms reproduced):


Buyer: Balung Boutique

Seller: Skedel Styles


- Seller will make available for pickup: 5,000 yards Skedel “skull print” cold weather wicking fabric, various colours. EXW, Skedel Styles, 1245 Parliament avenue, Toronto, Canada

- Purchase price $100,000 (fabric only), payable 48 hours before delivery is made available.

- Supplies always available.


The parties agreed that Skedel would have the goods available for pick up on 19 May. Balung arranged to have the fabric delivered to its manufacturing plant in Toronto. Pick up, delivery, and payment all went as planned.

Balung quickly manufactured its Skedel athletic clothing line and stocked its Ontario stores. Almost immediately, Balung saw that its new Skedel athletic clothing line was selling well in Toronto. On 27 May, citing to how well the Toronto market responded to the new sporting line, Balung increased the size of its order by an additional 10,000 yards, with immediate shipment, of the same fabric with the same skull print, which Skedel happily accepted on 28 May. This additional fabric would allow Balung to fulfill much needed demand and lock up the market on cold weather athletic clothing.

On 30 May, Skedel sent notice to Balung that the fabric was ready to pick on June 2 and asked for full payment of $200,000 before it would release the fabric.

The price surprised Balung. It had noted that Skedel’s website offered a 15% discount for orders of 15,000 yards or more. Given that Balung had now increased its order from 5,000 yards to 15,000 yards, it assumed the price was a mistake and sought clarification from Skedel.

Skedel confirmed that such a discount was available but made the point that this order was only for 10,000 yards. The previous contract was for 5,000 yards. It invited Balung to increase its order if it wanted the discount. It then told Balung that it needed an answer before the end of business on whether Balung still wanted the 10,000 yards at a price of $200,000 as it had other buyers.

Balung quickly replied reminding Skedel about the “test” point and explained that from its perspective at the very least, the first contract was modified by the order increase so that Skedel should look at this transaction as one contract for 15,000 yards with the 15% discount.

Skedel’s terse reply was this: “What benefit do I get out of giving you a discount! Now, do you want the fabric or not?”

Balung needed the fabric since it already promised to add more athletic clothing to its shelves and couldn’t risk losing its market position. So, it reluctantly accepted to pay $200,000 for the additional fabric. The fabric was delivered.

On 20 September Skedel received a letter from Balung seeking reimbursement for the $45,000 Balung claims it was forced to overpay. Naturally, Skedel disagrees.

Please prepare, no more than a 5-minute argument, either on Balung or Skedel’s behalf answering whether the parties agreed to one contract for the delivery of 15,000 yards of cold weather wicking fabric at a purchase price of $300,000 less 15% discount, or whether the parties entered into two contracts: one for 5,000 yards of cold weather wicking fabric at a purchase price of $100,000 and a second contract for 10,000 yards of cold weather wicking fabric at a purchase price of $200,000.

The only two cases you may rely on are:

  1. Gilbert Steel Ltd. v University Const. Ltd. (1976), 12 OR (2d) 19, 67 DLR (3d) 606
  2. Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191 (CanLII)




Walsh Family Law Moot (2018-2019)

Upper year students interested in particpating in a moot in the substantive area of family law are invited to apply for the Walsh Family Law Moot. The Walsh Family Law Moot will be held in March 2019 (exact date to be determined) at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. Judges will include various members of the judiciary, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Justice as well as a number of senior members of the family law bar. 

The Walsh Moot is a January term course. Most of the written materials for the moot will be written during the January term with oral practices scheduled for the winter term. 

Please note: The Walsh Moot is a separate course/event from the Walsh Negotiation Competition, which is coached by Prof Lynn Rockman.

To apply for the Walsh Moot, you must have completed the "Introduction to Family Law Course" by December 2018 and submit the following to Prof Vanessa Gruben ( by Friday September 28th at 4pm: 

1) cover letter 
2) law school transcripts
3) completed Walsh moot try out problem (see attached)

Based on the written materials, some students will also be asked to orally present their arguments (3 minutes) at a later date where judges will ask questions.

For more information contact the Walsh Moot student coach, Jamie Orr:

Students receive three credits in winter term.

Walsh Family Law moot try out problem 2018/19:

Jennifer and Naseem, both residents of Ontario, were married on June 1, 2014. They had known each other for about a year before getting married and moving in together. In August 2014, while working on Naseem’s computer, Jennifer discovered some old photos and correspondences that suggested that seven years earlier Naseem had been a man named Naim. Jennifer felt betrayed and numb. She had no idea about any of this and was at a loss for what to do. After some time had passed and she discussed matters with her family, she found herself getting angrier about Naseem’s deception and being misled in such a fundamental way. She knew she wanted out of the marriage, so she moved out of their home on August 20, 2015 and decided to seek legal advice.

Naseem was initially embarrassed by her lie. She cared deeply for Jennifer and falling in love with her was the best thing that had happened to her. She had thought about telling Jennifer of her sex reassignment surgeries and previous life, but was worried about her reaction. Naseem had already lost the support of her family and some friends. Initially, Naseem tried to appease Jennifer and convince her that this new information did not change anything about what they shared. Increasingly though, as Naseem was confronted with Jennifer’s highly offensive and transphobic attitude, she too wanted out of the marriage.

Jennifer’s lawyer suggested to her that the marriage could be annulled. Naseem was keen to have the marriage recognized as valid, but wanted a divorce.

There are no children of the marriage. There are no issues of support or property division to be dealt with and the parties did not enter into any domestic contract.

Write a two-page submission to the Superior Court of Fauteux regarding Jennifer v Naseem arguing why the marriage should be found valid or not. You can choose the side you wish to argue. You may work in groups for the research, but the writing should be your own.

This is due on: Friday September 28th by 4pm. Submissions should be emailed to

You may also be asked to prepare a 3-minute oral submission based on your written arguments where you should be prepared to answer judges’ questions. The date of the oral arguments will be determined shortly. You will be contacted by email regarding the oral submission.


TRY-OUTS FOR WALSH Negotiation Competition: BLG Negotiation Competition (2018-2019)


Upper year students are invited to register for the BLG Negotiation Competition in Family Law to be held on Saturday, November 10th.  

This event is organized by Professor Rockman and sponsored by a leading national law firm, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. 

You are eligible to register if you have taken, or are enrolled in this academic year, in any of: Negotiation CML3315; Mediation Theory and Practice CML2320; Introduction to Family Law CML2305; Intro. Droit de la Famille CML2705; Dispute Resolution in Family Law CML3391 or otherwise, with the permission of Professor Rockman.

To register, students must provide the following to Professor Rockman by email at by no later than 6 pm on October 3rd: 

1. Cover letter;

2. Résumé; and

3. Law school transcripts.

Most students will compete in pairs however, depending on numbers and schedule changes, some students will compete individually. Winners are selected individually.

Prior to the competition, students will receive an email from Professor Rockman providing the fact pattern and partner’s name, if any. Students may request a particular partner and every effort will be made to accommodate the request. 

The five winners of the BLG Negotiation Competition will represent our school at the national negotiation competition in family law held in Toronto on March 9, 2019 ("Walsh Family Law Negotiation Competition”) and are required to register for the three-credit, winter term course CML 3119C.

Please note: The "Walsh Family Law Negotiation Competition" is a separate course/event from the "Walsh Moot" which is coached by Professor Gruben.

For more information, contact Professor Rockman.

Arnup Cup

The deadline to register for the Arnup Cup try out is September 26, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Please consult the following documents for additional information on the try out. Questions might be addressed to Tony Paciocco


Other moots

Tryouts for Family law moots, Arnup, Aboriginal law, WTO and ICC international criminal law moots will take place separately. Look out for this information in your inbox and Dictum.

For the WTO/ELSA moot, please first send an email of interest to to arrange a tryout spot.

Back to top