Question #1:
Please provide clarification on the scope of Question #4 in the Moot problem:
- Do you want a neutral analysis applying the new definition of “habitat” to show how the decision should have been made, or advocacy arguing that, even under the new definition, our client should prevail?
- Should we limit our discussion to the evidence in the POA trial decision?
- Should we write/plead as if addressing the trial judge (rather than an appellate court)?
Answer #1:
- Each team should advocate for their respective client regarding the application of the new definition of “habitat”.
- Question #4 does not place limits on the evidence that applies in responding to this Question.
- The competition case is an appeal of the Ontario Court of Justice decision to the Supreme Environmental Moot Court of Canada and should be addressed as such.
Question #2:
What is the governing statute of the SEMCC? Given that the SEMCC has the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis apply as if it were the Supreme Court of Canada, is the SEMCC also governed by the Supreme Court Act?
Answer #2:
The SEMCC is not governed by the Supreme Court Act. The Willms & Shier Environmental Law Moot Official Competition Rules 2026 govern the procedure before the SEMCC.
Question #3:
With respect to Question #4 in the Moot Problem:
- Specify how Question #4 is an issue on appeal.
- Set out the question that the Court is to determine with respect to Question #4, as it would have been framed in the Notice of Appeal.
Answer #3:
- Question #4 is an issue on appeal because the legislative changes to the definition of “habitat” may impact whether or not the Ontario Court of Justice decision should be overturned on appeal.
- The question that the Court is to determine is set out in the Question #4: How should the trial have been decided if the new definition of “habitat” was in force when Consolidated Homes was charged and tried?