The Supreme Court of Flavelle goes virtual
Although the 2020 Grand Moot took place virtually, it brought the same passionate advocacy around the timely topic of mandatory vaccinations. The panel of judges featured U of T alumni Justice Sheilah Martin (SJD 91) of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Lorne Sossin (PhD 93) of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and Justice Edward Morgan (LLB 84) of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Teodora Pasca (3L JD/MA Criminology) and Olivia Eng (3L), for the appellant, challenged the constitutionality of a hypothetical mandatory vaccination program under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Geri Angelova (3L) and Hana Awwad (3L) made submissions on behalf of the government defending the constitutionality of the program.
As the annual highlight of the law school calendar, the Grand Moot did not lose any traction for going virtual. The YouTube live stream had 683 unique views and the Zoom Webinar attracted 152 attendants. The streaming process was seamless, and the Student Co-Chief Justices Saambavi Mano (3L) and Alina Yu (3L) in charge of organizing the event, were pleased with how it turned out.
Caption: Participants of the 2020 Grand Moot (from top left to bottom right): Justice Sheilah Martin, Saambavi Mano, Justice Edward Morgan, Justice Lorne Sossin, Dean Jutta Brunnée, Geri Angelova, Hana Awaad, Alina Yu, Teodora Pasca, Olivia Eng. Photo Credit: Moot Court Committee
The Moot Problem
This year’s problem centred around the Vaccination Act, legislation enacted by the fictitious government of Flavelle in response to a contagious disease similar to COVID-19. The appellant, Lucas Yuno, was charged under the Act for refusing vaccination.
Pasca and Eng argued that the Act deprived Yuno and individuals like him of their liberty and security of the person, contrary to principles of fundamental justice. Yuno had a traumatic experience with a vaccine in the past and suffered related anxieties. He was apprehended at a grocery store after failing to provide proof of vaccination. In this context, the Appellant argued that the Act’s escalating fines and potential imprisonment appeared rather punitive.
Representing an anti-vaxxer in a pandemic is not a popular choice. However, Pasca says, “[We] quickly learned that we didn’t have to endorse his choice, we just needed to argue that he had the right to make it and that the government shouldn’t severely punish him or others for that choice.” As someone interested in criminal defence work, Pasca found it rewarding to learn to humanize the client.
Angelova and Awwad, on behalf of the Attorney General of Flavelle, emphasized the devastating impact of the ongoing pandemic. They defined the government’s objective underlying the Act as achieving herd immunity as soon as possible, which Justice Martin commended as a well-reasoned argument. Violations against liberty and security of the person are rarely justifiable under the Charter, but the mooters undertook this burden with a skillful use of jurisprudence and medical evidence.
The moot raised important questions of law and public policy. After all submissions were heard, Justice Martin commented, “This is called the Grand Moot for a reason… What we saw was a grand problem and a grand response to a balanced and difficult problem.”
According to Mano and Yu, the Co-Chief Justices, the topic of mandatory vaccination was initially proposed for the 2019 Grand Moot. This year, it became highly relevant and potentially balanced with pandemic-specific considerations: near-universal vaccination has gained urgency and popular appeal.
To ensure the problem was fair for both sides, Mano and Yu added significant penalties to the hypothetical Act. They also included expert evidence on reasons why a person might not be able to get vaccinated, such as distrust of health agencies, difficulty securing transport to vaccination locations, and the inability to take time off work. This was introduced so that “the problem was representing the full range of people who reject vaccinations, and not only the typical ‘anti-vaxxer.’” When crafting this year’s problem, Mano and Yu also received significant support from the student bench clerks: Manula Adhihetty (2L), Militza Boljevic (2L), Amanda Cutinha (3L), Ema Ibrakovic (2L), Sofia Sugumar (2L), and Emily Tessier (2L).
Zoom Advocacy
Unfortunately, this year’s Grand Moot could not use the Faculty of Law’s Moot Court Room, which was designed for the annual event. However, hosting the event online brought major benefits, such as increased accessibility and broader reach. The law school’s Advancement Office helped spread the news of the event to alumni — many of whom would have been located too far to attend the moot, had it happened in person.
Making the first virtual Grand Moot happen was not easy, however. The event had to be rescheduled, and the uncertainties of lockdowns complicated the logistics. After knowing that the event would be online, the organizers aimed to mirror the experience of an in-person moot and even set up virtual “Robing Room” and “Deliberation Room” for the judges. The Co-Chief Justices said that most of their preparation was based on trial and error, after conducting various practice sessions to familiarize themselves with the technical process of streaming over Zoom and YouTube.
The mooters also found it strange, but fun, to make submissions over Zoom. In some run-through practices, volunteer judges asked questions while their cats clambered over them. In one instance, Pasca’s fire alarm started ringing during her submissions, and she had to mute herself and “leave the remainder of [her] submissions to the factum.” Thankfully, the mooters were able to present from rooms in the law school on the day of the actual event.
After the moot, apart from commending the mooters for the quality of their submissions and responses to questions, the judging panel also noted how “engaging” and “poised” the mooters were with the Zoom format. Indeed, Courts across the country have gone virtual due to necessity in a pandemic, which is also in keeping with the open-court principle. While mooting online may not be the ideal experience, mooting over Zoom still provides good practice for litigation.
One challenge with Zoom advocacy — even for those technically proficient — is eye contact. The mooters suggested putting the laptop on a stand. After placing the webcam was slightly above eye level, Angelova also put the judges at the top of her Zoom screen so that she could still see them while looking into the camera. In addition to using a stand, Pasca also had a sticky note at the top of her laptop to keep her eye contact focused on the webcam instead of her screen.
Other tips for Zoom advocacy include hiding self-view to minimize distraction. Angelova also used a wireless mouse for scrolling through notes on her screen to avoid leaning forward too much. However, she noted that delivering arguments at a podium could sometimes be preferable to sitting in front of a computer because judges may “[appreciate] the formality of counsel standing during their submissions, even over a virtual format.”
Perhaps next year’s mooters will adopt such advice if we are to have another virtual Grand Moot. The uncertainties of the pandemic certainly posed challenges for both the organizers and mooters, but the 2020 Grand Moot was still well-worth a watch given the thoughtfully designed problem and the demonstration of the best advocacy at the law school.
