A window into the legal profession: Reflections on the Wilson Moot

During my final year of law school, I had the privilege of representing the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the Wilson Moot in Toronto, alongside my teammates Nyla Nguy, Kristy Kwok and Tim Yu. We had the opportunity to join students from 14 other law schools from across Canada and Australia to deliver our arguments before a panel of judges – including a Supreme Court of Canada judge. 

The problem: The risks of AI in refugee protection

If you're new to law school, you may be wondering: what even is a moot? A moot simulates a real court proceeding using a fictional legal problem. You research the law, write a formal legal argument called a factum, and argue your position before a panel of judges who score each team on their written and oral arguments.

The Wilson Moot focuses on legal issues impacting women or minorities, and this year’s problem focused on the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making. A fictional refugee claimant’s application had been denied after being processed using an AI screening tool called “Maple,” which raised numerous questions about procedural fairness and an individual’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In preparation for the moot, our team spent months researching, drafting and revising our arguments through countless feedback cycles with our coaches. We then practiced our oral advocacy through multiple rounds of practice at law firms, the Department of Justice, and a final session in front of sitting BC Court of Appeal justices. Nyla and I argued on behalf of the government, highlighting the positive impact of Maple on the refugee protection system. Kristy and Tim argued on behalf of the claimant, urging the court to adapt existing law to the emerging challenges posed by AI.

Competition week in Toronto

The moot was held at the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Our judges included practicing lawyers and sitting judges who gave us generous substantive feedback after every round. 

After advancing through three rounds of mooting, we had the privilege of arguing before Justice Karakatsanis of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Pomerance of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Justice Cook of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the final round. Arguing in front of such a distinguished panel of judges was one of the most memorable moments of the competition. 

Ultimately, our team placed second overall. In the final round, I leaned heavily on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Sharma. In that case, the Government of Canada successfully argued that limiting the availability of conditional sentences for certain criminal offences was not discriminatory. However, Justice Karakatsanis had written a powerful dissenting opinion in R v Sharma, which I referenced directly in my oral arguments, while doing my best to answer her insightful questions. 

Throughout my time at the moot, every judge and lawyer I spoke with was incredibly warm and generous, and the experience far exceeded my expectations. I met extremely talented people, formed lasting friendships, and learned from the best in the field. This experience, and the level of access to real practitioners and judges, is something you simply cannot replicate in a classroom.

Thank you

A moot is only as strong as the community behind it. Thank you to everyone who volunteered their time to judge practices and help run the competition. 

I'm enormously grateful to our coaches, Professor Hoi Kong, Allison Render (Associate, Farris LLP) and Brienne Gloeckler (Associate, McMillan LLP), who were extremely patient and gave us countless hours of feedback. A sincere thank you to Borden Ladner Gervais LLP for sponsoring the Allard Law team.