Hawks Cup Archives
2024 Hawks Cup
Winners: Arthur Li & Reza Rehman, Mcgill University
Top Oralist: Helen Wu, McMaster University
Case: R v. Greater Sudbury
Link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20150/index.do
​
Summary: The City of Sudbury contracted with a third party to act as constructor to repair a downtown water main. During the repairs, in 2015, an employee of the third party struck and killed a pedestrian. The Ministry charged the City under s. 25(1)(c) of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that certain safety requirements were met. In response, the City denied it could be charged as an employer, arguing it lacked control over the construction work and delegated it to the third party instead.
Mooters prepared submissions addressing the following issues on appeal:
1) Does S.25(1)(c) of the OHSA apply to all employers or those with control over the workplace in question?
2) Was the City of Sudbury an employer of Interpaving Limited under S.1(1) of the OHSA?
3) Is the City of Sudbury liable for failing to comply with S.25(1)(c) of the OHSA?
2023 Hawks Cup
​
Winners: An Ngo & Austin Stein, Concordia University
​
Top Oralist: Austin Stein, Concordia University
Case: R v. Jordan
Link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16057/index.do
​
Summary: Mr. Jordan was arrested in British Columbia in December 2008 in relation to a "dial-a-dope" operation and ultimately convicted when his trial concluded in 2013. During his trial, Mr. Jordan sought a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within reasonable time under S.11(b) of the charter had been infringed. His request was denied.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and entered a stay of proceedings. In doing so, the majority held that in light of problems with the existing S.11(b) framework, a new test was warranted, where if a trial exceeds 18 months in the provincial court and 30 months in the superior court, the delay is presumptively unreasonable. The dissenting opinion, concurring in the view that Mr. Jordan’s delay was unreasonable, proposes changes to the existing S.11(b) framework, and rejects the majority’s new approach centred around presumptive time ceilings.
Mooters prepared submissions addressing the following issues:
-
Is the Supreme Court's new test for s. 11(b) cases an appropriate remedy to s. 11(b) jurisprudence?
-
Should the courts prefer this test to the proposal of the Supreme Court dissent?​​
2022 Hawks Cup
Winners: Monique Ingram & Elizabeth Hamilton, York University
Top Oralist: Jonathan Kagal, Wilfrid Laurier University
Case: Bent v. Platnick
Link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18459/index.do
​
Summary: Ms. Bent was a lawyer and president-elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA). Dr. Platnick was a medical doctor who had typically been hired by insurance companies to review medical specialists’ assessments of individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents. After two incidents between Ms. Bent and Dr. Platnick concerning two separate accident cases, Ms. Bent sent an email to a Listserv of approximately 670 OTLA members mentioning Dr. Platnick twice, outlining that he changed a doctor’s decision from a marked to moderate
impairment. Dr. Platnick commenced a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Bent and her employer. Consequently, Ms. Bent filed a motion under s. 137.1 of the CJA to dismiss Dr. Platnick’s lawsuit in defamation. The Supreme Court dismissed Ms. Bent’s motion and allowed the defamation lawsuit to proceed.
Mooters prepared submissions answering the following question on appeal:
Did the Supreme Court of Canada err in dismissing the s.137.1 motion under the Courts of Justice Act and allowing the respondent’s lawsuit in defamation to continue?
2021 Hawks Cup
Winners: Samarth Kaul & Jagdeep Dhilllon, Wilfrid Laurier University
Top Oralist: Rehana Lalani, Wilfrid Laurier University
Case: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk
Link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16919/index.do
​
Summary: The respondent was a site foreman and superintendent on a road improvement construction project employed by a construction company. The complainant was also working on the site as a civil engineer, employed by an engineering firm. While on the construction site, the respondent allegedly made derogatory comments to the complainant based on his religious affiliation, place of origin and sexual orientation. The complainant filed a human rights complaint, while the respondent argued the claim should be dismissed because there was no employment relationship between the parties.
The issue before the Supreme Court, and addressed by mooters at Hawks Cup, was whether discrimination “regarding employment” can ever be perpetrated by someone who does not occupy a position of power over the complainant.
2020 Hawks Cup
Winners: Alexandra Robbins & Darya Rahbar, University of Toronto
Top Oralist: Alexandra Robbins, University of Toronto
Case: R v. Ahmad
Link: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18383/index.do
​
Summary: Two accused persons were arrested and charged with numerous drug offences after the police executed a "dial-a-dope" operation, wherein they call the accused, request drugs, and request a meeting to complete the transaction. At trial, both accused persons argued the proceedings should be stayed on the basis of entrapment. The Supreme Court ultimately found one of the accused persons was entrapped but the other was not, while the dissent found neither were entrapped. At the root of the differences in opinion were disagreements on how existing entrapment frameworks should apply to modern dial-a-dope operations.