Before they graduate from Queen’s Law, at least one-third of all students will participate in a competitive moot. Last month, four of the school’s top mooters showed their peers best advocacy practices in a Grand Moot trial before a local judge. The participants, all competitive mooters last year, reflect on what made their experiences invaluable.

“Participating forced me to slow down, carefully consider just one set of facts – and explore all its implications,” says Jacob Vanderzwet, Law’23. “Developing submissions iteratively and working with practicing lawyers was a tangible reminder of why I came to law school in the first place. A little competition doesn’t hurt, either!” he adds.

With Law’23 teammates Madeleine Cleland, Simon Laughlin and Saad Rajper, Vanderzwet argued an appeal of R v. McColman before Superior Court Justice Graeme Mew, this year’s Queen’s Law jurist in residence. They addressed the scope of police authority to conduct random sobriety checks on private property and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter. McColman is set to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on Nov. 1.

The event, held in the Moot Court Room, was attended by upper-year students selected to competitive moot teams in provincial, national, and international competitions this academic year; upper-year students who will be fulfilling the advocacy JD degree requirement this year; and interested first-year students.  

Laughlin explains how mooters learn to write an effective factum. “After thoroughly researching the issues, you will work with your team to identify your strongest arguments and begin developing a cohesive narrative,” he says. “You will learn about and discuss the finer points of written advocacy. Each draft will be edited collaboratively to ensure that your writing is clear, concise, ‘point first,’ and in an active voice. It is an unparalleled learning experience that will significantly improve your legal writing skills.”

“Mooting teaches how to react when you are dragged off script, when a judge throws a curveball,” notes Vanderzwet. “It is bidirectional and at times conversational. As practices unfolded in the leadup to the event, I learned how to home in my submissions on what played well, and how to approach areas of relative weakness in our arguments.”

Working collaboratively as a team had numerous benefits, says Rajper. “Having someone to talk through ideas and work through challenges with is incredibly helpful. Everyone brings a different perspective to a problem. These perspectives allow you to think more creatively as a team. Working as a team makes the experience less daunting and more fun!”

Co-Chair of the Queen’s Law Moot Court Committee, Professor Gail Henderson, believes one of the most important aspects of mooting is “the opportunity to dive deep on a narrow legal question and argue it. This is the type of work many students will do in practice, and not something they often have the chance to do in other courses, where the goal is broad coverage of a general topic,” she says.

As one of the largest moot court programs at any Canadian law school, students from Queen’s Law compete in a wide range of legal areas, including constitutional law, Aboriginal law, criminal law, international law, tax, securities law, environmental law, trade law, commercial arbitration, IP, labour arbitration, and trial advocacy. Queen’s teams participate in up to 20 mooting competitions each year, continually adding to the trophies in the school’s display cases.

By Nancy Dorrance