1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

The Bowman Moot Committee 2018

Executive committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Chief Justice Eugene P. Rossiter, Tax Court of Canada
Dr. Emir Crowne, Counsel, KPA Lawyers PC, Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Yves St-Cyr, Partner, Dentons Canada LLP and Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot

The Bowman Moot Committee 2018

The Bowman Moot Problem 2019

Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot
2019 – MOOT PROBLEM
Issued: NOVEMBER 12, 2018

1245989 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 114

  1. The reasons and judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in 1245989 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018 FCA 114) are appealed to the Bowman Supreme Moot Court for Tax Appeals.
  2. The questions in issue on appeal are:
    1. For the purposes of section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), is it necessary for a taxpayer to realize a tax benefit in order to find that a tax benefit exists?
    2. For the purposes of section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), were section 84.1 and subsection 89(1) abused by the taxpayer?
  3. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the lower courts only those with respect to the scope and application of section 84.1, subsection 89(1) and section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) – the General Anti-avoidance Rule – are to be addressed by Counsel in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the lower courts may be advanced by Counsel in their submissions, but only as they relate to section 84.1, subsection 89(1) and section 245.
  4. The courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in the decision.
  5. The moot problem is an actual case, and therefore the parties’ factums are to be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed court materials.

Concours national de plaidoirie en droit fiscal Donald G.H. Bowman
2019 – CAUSE EN APPEL
Émis: le 12 novembre 2018

1245989 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 114

  1. Les motifs et le jugement de la Cour d’appel fédérale dans 1245989 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018 FCA 114) sont portés en appel devant la Cour suprême fictive pour les pourvois en droit fiscal.
  2. Les questions en litige en appel sont:
    1. Aux fins de l’application de l’article 245 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada), est-il nécessaire qu’un contribuable « réalise » un avantage fiscal pour constater l’existence de celui-ci?
    2. Aux fins de l’application de l’article 245 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada), est-ce que le contribuable a abusé de l’article 84.1 et du paragraphe 89(1)?
  1. Parmi toutes les questions soulevées dans les motifs des juridictions inférieures, seules celles concernant la portée et l’application de l’article 84.1, du paragraphe 89(1) et de l’article 245 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu (Canada) – la disposition générale anti-évitement – doivent être abordées par les avocat(e)s dans leurs observations écrites et orales. Ils/elles peuvent faire valoir des arguments qui ne sont pas mentionnés dans les motifs des juridictions inférieures, mais dans la mesure où ils se rapportent à l’article 84.1, au paragraphe 89(1) et à l’article 245.
  2. Les tribunaux ont compétence pour toutes les questions soulevées dans la décision.
  3. La cause en appel étant une cause réelle, les mémoires des parties doivent donc être des oeuvres originales, et non une copie ou une simple imitation de documents judiciaires déjà déposés.
The Bowman Moot Problem 2019

Moot Participants 2018

Sherbrooke, 1A: Marie-Ève Plamondon, Marc Allard
Sherbrooke, 1R: Jérémie Breault, Alexandra Auger

Calgary, 2A: Anand Soma, Dan Mills
Calgary, 2R: Sydney Thomson, Nicola Nielsen
Calgary, Alternate: Darren Chung

Windsor, 3A: Elizabeth McLellan, Monica Carinci
Windsor, 3R: Jennifer Clements, Ilan Levy

Osgoode, 4A: Candice Camilleri, Emilie Andrews
Osgoode, 4R: Adam Sherman, Alvin Wang
Osgoode, Alternate: Carmen Charles

Saskatchewan, 5A: Josée Berthelet, Alexa Love
Saskatchewan, 5R: Shivaun Eberle, Emily Erhardt
Saskatchewan, Alternate: Jeremy Barber

British Columbia, 6A: Cavan Raistrick, Katherine Taylor
British Columbia, 6R: Scott McLeod, Kendal Allemekinders

Toronto, 7A: Maria-Christina Christodoulou, David Rybak
Toronto, 7R: Matthew Elder, Stephanie D’Amico

Queen’s, 8A: Elana Friedman, Lucy Sun
Queen’s, 8R: Ryan Wilson, Hisham Imtraz
Queen’s, Alternate: Sara Shuchat

Western, 9A: Charles Noe, Christopher Fazio
Western, 9R: Nick Avis, Joshua Hersh Western, Alternate: Honor Lay

Ottawa, 10A: Karen Cheung, Hubie Yu
Ottawa, 10R: Joseph Lo Presti, Essa Abdool-Karim
Ottawa Alternate: Valentine Gurfinkel

Alberta, 11A: Benjamin Effa, Athena Sturmay
Alberta, 11R: Mitchell Ng, Elizabeth Allum

Dalhousie, 12A: Kabezya (Glory) Kabila, Kevin Pedersen
Dalhousie, 12R: Daniel Irvine, Daniel Vassberg

New Brunswick, 13A: Melinda Ponting-Moore, Marc Pelletier
New Brunswick, 13R: Harrison Smith, Rob Mignardi

Moot Participants 2018

Moot Participants 2017

Moot Participants 2017

Calgary, 1A: Marco Maduri, Chris Johnston
Calgary, 1R: Trent Blanchette, Hannah Buckley
Calgary, Alternate: Jessie Sunner

Windsor, 2A: Aida Kimigan, Courtney March
Windsor, 2R: Hersimar Singh Anand, Rachel Skipper-Horton

Osgoode, 3A: PJ Esfandiari, Krupa Shah
Osgoode, 3R: Michael Ding, Kevin Chan

Saskatchewan, 4A: Shauna Shewchuk, Adam Unick
Saskatchewan, 4R: Harrison Clark, Firuz Rahimi
Saskatchewan, Alternate: Jonathan Milani

British Columbia, 5A: Tyler Beg, Alexander Wind
British Columba, 5R: Jennifer Horton, Grace Shaw
British Columbia, Alternate: Leandra Gypta

Toronto, 6A: Patricia Lahoud, Elizabeth White
Toronto, 6R: Mina Batyreva, Jesse Waslowski

Queen’s, 7A: Tigra Bailey, Sandy Chen
Queen’s, 7R: Dawit Debssou, Genevieve Favreau
Queen’s, Alternate: Elana Friedman

Western, 8A: Karen Luu, Chris Araujo
Western, 8R: M Zaki Shams, Jack Brown
Western, Alternate: Brendan Clouthier

Ottawa, 9A: Kathryn Ginn, Andrew Froh
Ottawa, 9R: Lee Chitty, Chris Tsilingris

Alberta, 10A: Allegra Hessels, James McTague
Alberta, 10R: Alexander Michel, Karsten Erzinger

Victoria, 11A: Steven Davis, Jana Keeley
Victoria, 11R: Samson Rapley, Jeremy Henderson
Victoria, Alternate: Reina Mistry

Dalhousie, 12A: Iain MacDonald, Tori Skot
Dalhousie, 12R: Samuel Mason, Danielle Levesque

New Brunswick, 13A: Adam Kuciej, Benjamin Arthur Lord
New Brunswick, 13R: Patrick Losier, John Alan Chute Morse

Sherbrooke, 14A: Philippe Blais, Kloé Sévigny
Sherbrooke, 14R: Caroline Proulx, Caroline Berthelet

Moot Participants 2017

Moot Participants 2016

Moot participants

Queen’s, 1A: Tigra Bailey, Stuart Clark
Queen’s, 1R: Graham Buitenhuis, Adam Zweig
Queen’s, Alternate: James Kwon

Saskatchewan, 2A: Cameron Smith, Justin Wood
Saskatchewan,2R: Alice Jeon, Zina Scott
Saskatchewan, Alternate: Evan Hutchison

Windsor, 3A: Myles Anevich, Nicholas Dominato
Windsor, 3R: Shreya Tekriwal, Ji-Juin Chang

Osgoode, 4A: Victoria De Luna, Warren Silver
Osgoode, 4R: Martin Banach, Victoria Mitrova
Osgoode, Alternate: Sujae Amy Lee

Western, 5A: Oliver Robbins, Laura Sullivan
Western, 5R: Kieran Dyer, Bhavneet Sandhu
Western, Alternate: Dan Daniels

Calgary, 6A: Colin Bartlett, Jon McDonald
Calgary, 6R: Stefan Mirkovic, David Gordon
Calgary, Alternate: Michael Shahinian

Toronto, 7A: Bernd Buschke, Roger Smith
Toronto, 7R: Andrew MacLachlan, Nabeel Thomas

British Columbia, 8A: Leandra Gupta, Chris Ross
British Columbia, 8R: Ting (Tammy) Hua, Matthew Tse
British Columbia, Alternate: Michael Wilson

Alberta, 9A: Kayla Thompson, Patrick Smith
Alberta, 9R: Robley Goff, Afshaan Jiwaji

Ottawa, 10A: Priya Bains, Nickola Haddad
Ottawa, 10R: Cedric Marin, Annie Zhuang

Moot Participants 2016

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2016

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
Associate Chief Justice Lucie Lamarre, Tax Court of Canada
Justice Frank Pizzitelli, Tax Court of Canada
Justice Kathleen Lyons, Tax Court of Canada
Justice Dominique Lafleur, Tax Court of Canada
Justice Wyman Webb, Tax Court of Canada
Justice David Graham, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Wayne Adams, Canadian Tax Foundation
Peter Aprile, Counter Tax Law
Francois Barette, Fasken Martineau LLP
Marty Boris, Department of Justice
Monica Biringer, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Chia-yi Chua, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Nicolas Cloutier, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Sunita Doobay, Tax Chambers LLP
Vince Imerti, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Margaret Nixon, Deloitte
Siobhan Monaghan, ATX Law
The Honourable Karen Sharlow, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
David Stevens, Gowlings LLP
Yves St-Cyr, Dentons Canada LLP
Matthew Williams, Thorsteinssons LLP

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2016

2017 Sponsors

2017 Sponsors

The Bowman Moot Problem 2018

Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot
2018 – MOOT PROBLEM
Issued: NOVEMBER 13, 2017

Fundy Settlement v. The Queen (2012 SCC 14)

  1. The reasons and judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Fundy Settlement v. The Queen (2012 SCC 14) are appealed to the Bowman Supreme Moot Court for Tax Appeals.
  2. The questions in issue on appeal are:
    1. What is the appropriate common law test for determining the residence of a trust? In which jurisdiction were the taxpayers resident under this common law test
    2. Were the taxpayers deemed to be resident of Canada under section 94 of the Income Tax Act (Canada)?
  3. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada and the lower courts, only those with respect to the (i) the common law test for determining trust residency and (ii) the deeming rule in section 94 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) are to be addressed by counsel for the parties in their written and oral submissions. Counsel need not address arguments in respect of section 245 of the Income Tax Act (Canada). Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions but only as they relate to the above-noted issues.
  4. The courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in the decision.
  5. The moot problem is an actual case, and therefore the parties’ factums are to be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed court materials.
The Bowman Moot Problem 2018

2018 Bowman Moot Panelists

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Justice Wyman Webb, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Lucie Lamarre, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Johanne D’Auray, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice David E. Graham, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Frank Pizzitelli, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Bruce Russell, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Guy R. Smith from the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Don Sommerfeldt, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Wayne Adams, Canadian Tax Foundation
Peter Aprile, Counter Tax Law
Monica Biringer, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Nicholas Cloutier, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Michael Collinge, Deloitte Tax Law LLP
Sunita Doobay, Tax Chambers LLP
Helen Ferrigan, Tory’s LLP
Nathalie Goyette, PwC
Amanda Heale, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Jenny Mboutsiadis, Fasken
Earl Miller, Dentons
Salvatore Mirandola, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Siobhan Monaghan, KPMG
Margaret Nixon, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Rebecca Potter, Thorsteinssons LLP
John Sorensen, Gowling WLG
Matthew Williams, Thorsteinssons LLP
John Yuan, McCarthy Tétrault LLP

View the 2017 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2016 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2015 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2014 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2013 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2012 Bowman Moot panelists.

View the 2011 Bowman Moot panelists.

2018 Bowman Moot Panelists

View the 2015 Moot Participants

Moot participants 2015

Windsor, 1A: Khaled Gheddai, Zev Smith
Windsor 1R: Khalid Karim, Jillian Mulroy

Dalhousie, 2A: Jacqueline Byers, Kira Misiewicz
Dalhousie, 2R: Kyle Ereaux, Samuel Perlmutter

Calgary, 3A: Jessica Babineau, Kaitlin Gray
Calgary, 3R: Krista Isberg, Raphaelle Masquillier
Calgary, Alternate: Haifeng Hu

Queens’, 4A: Natasha Lombardi, Carl Petersen Deeprose
Queens’, 4R: Greg Bush, James Kwon
Queens’, Alternate: Craig Zeech

Victoria, 5A: Brian Beitz, Yaroslavna Nosikova
Victoria, 5R: James Parker, Virginia Zhao
Victoria, Alternate: Tyler Holte

Western, 6A: Matt Bota, Steven Weisman
Western, 6R: Andrew Johnson, Alex St. John
Western, Alternate: Jessica Stuart

New Brunswick, 7A: Edward Choi, Matthew Peyton
New Brunswick, 7R: Tara Smith, Jordan Thompson

Osgoode, 8A: William Lu, Olha Senyshyn
Osgoode, 8R: Alexander J. Baker, Amy Sujae Lee
Osgoode, Alternate: Iulia Drehuta

British Columbia, 9A: Dan Cherniak, Trevor Simpson
British Columbia, 9R: Emily Ho, Alvin Lun
British Columbia, Alternate: Matthew Tse

Toronto, 10A: Taylor Cao, Emily Gilmour
Toronto, 10R: Shavone Hayes, Fraser Malcolm

Alberta, 11A: Adrienne Funk, Christine Hittinger
Alberta, 11R: Ryan Bencic, Michael Low

Ottawa, 12A: Anna Breu, Yusuf Khan
Ottawa, 12R: Brian Kells, Jason Wang

View the 2015 Moot Participants

The Bowman Moot Problem 2017

Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot

2017 – MOOT PROBLEM

Issued: NOVEMBER 14, 2016

Kruger Inc. v The Queen, 2016 FCA 186

 1. The reasons and judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Kruger Inc. v The Queen (2016 FCA 186) are appealed to the Bowman Supreme Moot Court for Tax Appeals.

2. The questions in issue on appeal are:

A. Is the mark-to-market method acceptable for computing an accurate picture of income under section 9 of the Income Tax Act? Did the Court of Appeal err in permitting the taxpayer to use that method in these circumstances?

B. Are the purchased options considered ‘inventory’ under the Income Tax Act? If not, did the Court of Appeal err in determining that the purchased options were neither capital property nor inventory?

3. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the Federal Court of Appeal, only those with respect to the (i) the use of the mark to market method and the computation of income under section 9 of the Income Tax Act and (ii) the property classification of purchased options are to be addressed by counsel for the parties in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions but only as they relate to the above-noted issues.

4. The courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in the decision.

5. The moot problem is an actual case, and therefore the parties’ factums are to be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed court materials.

The Bowman Moot Problem 2017

The Bowman Moot Committee 2017

Executive Committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Chief Justice Eugene P. Rossiter, Tax Court of Canada
Dr. Emir Crowne, Counsel, KPA Lawyers PC, Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Professor John P. Weir, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law
Timothy Fitzsimmons, Partner, Dentons Canada LLP and Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot

The Bowman Moot Committee 2017

The Bowman Moot Committee 2016

Executive Committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Chief Justice Eugene P. Rossiter, Tax Court of Canada
Dr. Emir Crowne, Counsel, KPA Lawyers PC, Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Professor John P. Weir, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law
Timothy Fitzsimmons, Partner, Dentons Canada LLP and Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot

The Bowman Moot Committee 2016

The Bowman Moot Problem 2016

Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot

2016 – MOOT PROBLEM

Issued: NOVEMBER 16, 2015

Guindon v. The Queen (2015 SCC 41)

 1. The reasons and judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Guindon v. The Queen (2015 SCC 41) are appealed to the Bowman Supreme Moot Court for Tax Appeals.

2. The questions in issue on appeal are:

A. Was the taxpayer, by virtue of having been assessed a penalty under section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act, a “person charged with an offence” within the meaning of section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

B. Was the taxpayer required to provide notice of constitutional question in respect of her arguments regarding the nature of the penalty under section 163.2? If so, could the Supreme Court of Canada exercise its discretion to consider such arguments in the absence of the provision of such notice?

3. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada, only those with respect to the (i) the nature of the penalty in section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act and (ii) the notice of constitutional question are to be addressed by counsel for the parties in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions but only as they relate to the above-noted issues.

4. The courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in the decision.

5. The moot problem is an actual case, and therefore the parties’ factums are to be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed court materials.

 

The Bowman Moot Problem 2016

Moot Participants

Moot Participants

Terms of Use

This website (the “Website”) is provided as a service to clients, colleagues, and others for general information only. This information is not designed to provide legal or other advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. You should not take, or refrain from taking action based on its content. Please do not send us any confidential information until we have confirmed in writing that we represent or act for you. Unsolicited emails from non-clients do not establish a lawyer-client relationship, may not be privileged, and may be disclosed to others. Prior results and case studies do not guarantee a similar outcome in future representation.

This Terms of Use Agreement (the “Terms of Use” or “Agreement”) describes the terms and conditions applicable to your access and use of the Website. You accept this Agreement by using the Website or accessing any content available through the Website, including without limitation our RSS feeds or Campaign Monitor (collectively, the “Content”). Dentons may revise this Agreement at any time by posting the revised Terms of Use on the Website, and you agree that your use of the Website after such changes will constitute your acceptance of such changes. For your convenience, the date of last revision is included at the top of this page. Changes to this Agreement will not be applied retroactively.

1. Changes. Dentons may make changes to the Website and the Content and/or the services described on the Website at any time.

2. Proprietary Rights. The Website and the Content are the sole and exclusive property of Dentons and/or its licensors. You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit for any commercial purpose, any portion of the Website or the Content other than as expressly authorized by Dentons in writing. You hereby acknowledge and agree that, as between Dentons and you, all right, title, and interest in and to the Website and the Content shall be owned exclusively by Dentons. Use of the Website or the Content in any way not expressly permitted by this Agreement is prohibited.

3. Permitted Uses. So long as you agree and comply with the terms of this Agreement, and unless this Agreement is otherwise terminated by Dentons, Dentons invites you to view and/or print a single copy of the Website and the Content. You agree that you will not remove or modify any acknowledgements, credits or legal notices contained on the Website or in the Content. Special terms may apply to some services offered on the Website and may be posted in connection with the applicable service, feature or activity. Any such terms are in addition to this Agreement and, in the event of a conflict, any such terms shall prevail.

4. Additional Restrictions. You agree not to access the Website by any means other than through a standard web browser on a computer or mobile device. You further agree that you will not damage, disable, overburden, or impair the Website or interfere with any other party’s use and enjoyment of it.

5. About The Information On This Site. The Content available on the Website is intended to be a general information resource and is provided solely on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis. You are encouraged to confirm the information contained herein. You should not construe Dentons’s publication of the Website as a warranty or guarantee of the quality or availability of any services. Any Content will reflect only English or United States legal principles (except where expressly stated otherwise).

6. Links To Other Sites. The Website may contain links to websites operated by other parties. Dentons provides these links to other websites as a convenience, and use of these sites is at your own risk. The linked sites are not under the control of Dentons, and Dentons is not responsible for the content available on the other sites. Such links do not imply Dentons’ endorsement of information or material on any other site and Dentons disclaims all liability with regard to your access to and use of such linked Websites.

7. Links. Unless otherwise set forth in a written agreement between you and Dentons, you must adhere to Dentons’ linking policy as follows: (i) the appearance, position and other aspects of the link may not be such as to damage or dilute the goodwill associated with Dentons’ name and trademarks; (ii) the appearance, position and other attributes of the link may not create the false appearance that your organization or entity is sponsored by, affiliated with, or associated with Dentons; (iii) when selected by a user, the link must display the Website on full-screen and not within a “frame” on the linking Website; and (iv) Dentons reserves the right to revoke its consent to the link at any time and in its sole discretion.

8. Trademarks. Unauthorized use of any Dentons trademark, service mark or logo are prohibited, and may be a violation of federal and state trademark laws.

9. Disclaimers And Limitation Of Liability.

a. THE WEBSITE AND ALL CONTENT ON THE WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN “AS IS” “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. DENTONS MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THE WEBSITE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ANY INFORMATION BEFORE RELYING ON IT. USE OF THE WEBSITE AND THE CONTENT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.

b. DENTONS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT USE OF THE WEBSITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO ENSURE THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY OBTAIN FROM THE WEBSITE IS FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL CODE.

c. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, DENTONS DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, AND FURTHER DISCLAIMS ALL LOSSES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE WEBSITE, THE CONTENT, OR THE GOODS OFFERED OR SOLD THROUGH THE WEBSITE, EVEN IF DENTONS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

10. Exclusions And Limitations. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of certain warranties or the limitation or exclusion of liability for incidental or consequential damages. Accordingly, some of the above limitations may not apply to you.

11. Indemnity. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Dentons, its subsidiaries, and affiliates, and their respective officers, agents, partners and employees, harmless from any loss, liability, claim, or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, due to or arising out of your use of the Website and/or breach of this Agreement.

12. Copyright. The Website is protected by international copyright laws. Except for your use as authorized above, you may not modify, reproduce or distribute the content, design or layout of the Website, or individual sections of the content, design or layout of the Website, without Dentons’ express prior written permission.

13. NOTICE AND PROCEDURES FOR CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT

If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide the following information to the Site’s Copyright Agent:

a. An electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;

b. A description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;

c. A description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Site (providing URL(s) in the body of the communication is the best way to help Company locate content quickly);

d. Your name, address, telephone number and e-mail address;

e. A signed statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and

f. A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the information provided in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner’s behalf.

Company’s copyright agent can be reached as follows:

John Koski
Global Chief Legal Officer
c/o Dentons US LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
Chicago, IL 60606
Email: john.koski@dentons.com
(Please put “Copyright Infringement” in the subject line)

Company may, in its sole discretion, disable and/or terminate use of a Site or Sites by users who infringe the intellectual property of others.

14. Privacy Policy. By agreeing to these terms, you acknowledge that Dentons may collect, use and disclose your information as described in our Privacy Policy.

15. Choice Of Law and Forum. This Agreement shall be governed by, and will be construed under, Canadian law; provided, however, if you are a resident of the United States, this Agreement shall be governed by, and will be construed under, the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, and you irrevocably agree to the exclusive jurisdiction by the federal and state courts located in the County of New York, in the State of New York, to settle any dispute which may arise out of, under, or in connection with this Agreement. YOU AGREE THAT NO CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR USE OF THE WEBSITE MAY BE BROUGHT AS A CLASS ACTION.

16. Data Processing. Dentons takes the view that it is the “Data Controller” when it processes personal data related to and/or received from our clients and ultimately takes responsibility for managing that data in compliance with applicable data privacy regulations. Consequently the obligation to enter into a “personal data processing agreement” does not apply to Dentons and such agreements shall not be signed by us.

17. Miscellaneous.

a. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force.

b. Headings are for reference purposes only and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope or extent of such section.

c. Dentons’ failure to act with respect to any failure by you or others to comply with these Terms of Use does not waive Dentons’ right to act with respect to subsequent or similar failures.

d. These Terms of Use set forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and Dentons with respect to the subject matter hereof.

e. Any cause of action or claim you may have with respect to this Agreement or the Website must be commenced within six (6) months after the claim or cause of action arises or such claim or cause of action shall be barred.

f. You may not assign or transfer your rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Dentons, and any assignment or transfer in violation of this provision shall be null and void.

g. Dentons reserves the right to seek all remedies available at law and in equity for violations of this Agreement and/or the rules and regulations set forth on the Website, including without limitation the right to block access from a particular internet address.

18. Contact. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions regarding this Terms of Use Agreement, please contact us using our Contact Form, or by post to Attention: Dentons.com Terms of Use Questions at (a) One Fleet Place, London EC4M 7WS, England, (b) 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900, Chicago, IL 60606-6404, (c) 5 boulevard Malesherbes, 75008 Paris, France, (d) 77 King Street West, Suite 400 Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, ON, M5K 0A1, or (e) Suite 3201, Jardine House, 1 Connaught Place,Central, Hong Kong.

Terms of Use

Problem Clarifications – 2013

2013 Bowman Tax Moot

January 27th, 2013

The Bowman Moot Committee received the following questions outside of the clarification period, but has decided to provide answers to all Teams nonetheless:

  1. “A process question – whether teams can make reference to a transcript of the expert witnesses testimony in the Leblanc decision…”
  2. “Substantive question – the first question in the moot problem asks whether ‘gambling winnings’ are exempt from tax under Canadian law, and I wonder whether anyone inquired whether the drafters intended this to read ‘lottery winnings’.”
  3. “The bowman moot rules generally require students to follow the McGill guide, which requires that citations be placed after every paragraph in a factum.  This particular form of citation is quite cumbersome, and last year, there were teams that used the footnote style instead. I’m assuming that it’s fine for the students to use the footnote style (so long as they do so consistently throughout the document).”

The Bowman Moot Committee provides the following answers:

  1. Reference can indeed be made to any publicly available materials, including transcripts of witness testimony.
  2. “Gambling winnings” is intended to cover all forms of lawful wagering and betting in Canada. It includes lottery winnings.
  3. Footnotes are acceptable.

_____________

Dr. Emir Crowne, on behalf of the Bowman Moot Committee

Problem Clarifications – 2013

Moot Participants 2012

Alberta, 9A: Scott Nicol, Theo Stathakos
Alberta, 9R: Jaques Du Plessis, Nancy Strong
Alberta, Alternate: Devinn Connolly

British Columbia, 7A: Jennifer Flood, Alex Hudson
British Columbia, 7R: Liam Bath, Evan Griffith
British Columbia, Alternate: Will House

Calgary, 1A: Daniel MacAuley, Veronica Pinero
Calgary, 1R: Kaitlyn Perrin, Steven Spackman

Osgoode, 8A: Benjamin Keen, Jennifer Webb
Osgoode, 8R: Preston MacNeil, Slavica Stojimirovic
Osgoode, Alternate: Lenci Kadavil

Ottawa, 2A: Maria Aylward, Saeed Teebi
Ottawa, 2R: Ian Greenway, Christian Orton
Ottawa, Alternate: Hamid Nuri

Queen’s, 10A: Addy Cameron-Huff, Taheratul Haque
Queen’s, 10R: Abbey Sinclair, Steve Taylor
Queen’s, Alternate: Jonathan Crangle

Toronto, 3A: Atrisha Lewis, Alec Milne
Toronto, 3R: Leonard Elias, Sameer Nurmohamed

Victoria, 4A: Asif Abdulla, Lyndsey Delamont
Victoria, 4R: Jeremy Ho, Lauren Longbottom
Victoria, Alternate: Meaghan McWhinnie

Western, 6A: Brent Harasym, Kristine Spence
Western, 6R: Christine Arruda, Josh Kumar
Western, Alternate: Michael Royal

Windsor, 5A: Jesse Gardner, Adam Patchet
Windsor, 5R: Jason Kujath, James Little
Windsor, Alternate: Isida Ranxi

Moot Participants 2012

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2013

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Karen Sharlow, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Wyman Webb, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Chief Justice Gerald Rip, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Brent Paris, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Randall Bocock, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Marie-Thérèse Boris, Department of Justice Canada
Wayne Adams, Canadian Tax Foundation
David Stevens, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Brandon Wiener, Thorsteinssons LLP
Matthew Williams, Thorsteinssons LLP
John Yuan, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Guy Gagnon, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Kathleen Hanly, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Monica Biringer, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Cliff Rand, Deloitte Tax Law LLP
Vince Imerti, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Neil Bass, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
Doug Stewart, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
François Barette, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2013

The Bowman Moot Problem 2011

The participants in the inaugural Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot (the “Bowman Moot”) are dealing with the actual appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen ([2009] F.C.J. No. 625), which was argued at the Supreme Court of Canada on January 21 of this year. The Federal Court of Appeal decision is, in turn, an appeal from the Tax Court decision in Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen ([2007] T.C.J. No. 335).

For the purposes of the Bowman Moot, the appeal is before the “Supreme Bowman Moot Court,” which has jurisdiction equivalent to that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The students were also given the following instructions:

  1. Both lower courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in their respective decisions.
  2. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the lower courts only those with respect to the scope and application of section 245 of the Income Tax Act – the General Anti-avoidance Rule – are to be addressed by Counsel in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in the reasons of the lower courts may be advanced by Counsel in their submissions, but only as they relate to section 245.
  3. The moot problem is an actual/live case in-progress and therefore Counsels’ facta are to be “original” works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of the facta filed with the Supreme Court of Canada.
  4. The formalities of the remedy sought, penalties and costs, are not to be addressed.
The Bowman Moot Problem 2011

The Bowman Moot Problem 2012

The participants in the Bowman Moot are addressing the appeal of the Federal Court of
Appeal’s decision in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen (2010 FCA 201), which was argued at the
Supreme Court of Canada on January 13 of this year. The Federal Court of Appeal decision is, in
turn, an appeal from the Tax Court decision in GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen (2008 TCC
324).

For the purposes of the Bowman Moot, the appeal is before the “Supreme Moot Court for Tax
Appeals,” which has jurisdiction equivalent to that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The participants were given the following instructions:

  1. Both lower courts have jurisdiction over all issues raised in their respective decisions.
  2. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is now appealed to the Supreme Moot Court for
    Tax Appeals.
  3. The questions at issue are:
      1. Did the Federal Court of Appeal err by applying the reasonable business person test to
        the interpretation of subsection 69(2) of the Income Tax Act?
      2. Did the Federal Court of Appeal err in interpreting subsection 69(2) by failing to apply
        the arm’s-length principle on a transaction-by-transaction basis and on the basis that
        members of the multinational group are operating as separate entities?
  4. Of all of the issues raised in the reasons given by the lower courts, only those with respect
    to the interpretation of subsection 69(2) of the Income Tax Act are to be addressed by
    counsel for the parties in their written and oral submissions. Arguments not referenced in
    the reasons of the lower courts may be advanced by counsel in their submissions but only
    as they relate to the above-noted issues.
  5. The moot problem is an actual/live case-in-progress, and therefore counsels’ factums are to
    be original works, as opposed to any copy or mere imitation of existing filed factums.
  6. The Part XIII reassessments, penalties and costs are not to be addressed.
The Bowman Moot Problem 2012

Search

Search

Moot Participants 2011

Alberta, 6A: Robert Joseph, Kristen Mercier
Alberta, 6R: Gianfranco Matrangolo, Nathan Robb
Alberta, Alternate: Sterling Lawrence

British Columbia, 4A: Jeremie Beitel, Alia Somji
British Columbia, 4R: Michael Alexis, Timothy Luk
British Columbia, Alternate: Evan Griffith

Osgoode, 5A: Kate Doyle, Jennifer Pocock
Osgoode, 5R: Lindsay Beelen, Saktish Pillai
Osgoode, Alternate: Shimmy Posen

Queen’s, 7A: Jaimie Graham, Bo Hou
Queen’s, 7R: Jonathan Crangle, Catie Fenn
Queen’s, Alternate: Raju Sidhu

Victoria, 1A: Mary Bartle, Drew Gilmour
Victoria, 1R: Andrew Hutton, Meaghan McWhinnie
Victoria, Alternate: Michael Drouillard

Western, 3A: Rajeeve Thakur, John Wenzel
Western, 3R: Brent Harasym, Daniel Morrison

Windsor, 2A: Lindsey Laframboise, Andrew Morreale
Windsor, 2R: Jeremy Carnegie, Sage Harvey
Windsor, Alternate: Gary Fung

Moot Participants 2011

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2012

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Eleanor Dawson, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Karen Sharlow, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Johanne Trudel, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Sean J. Harrington, Federal Court
The Honourable Roger T. Hughes, Federal Court
The Honourable Randall Bocock, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Robert Hogan, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Brent Paris, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Wayne Adams, Canadian Tax Foundation
François Barette, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Marie-Thérèse Boris, Department of Justice Canada
Ron Durand, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Gordon Funt, Dentons Canada LLP
Angelo Gentile, Dentons Canada LLP
Cliff Rand, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Brandon Siegal, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Christopher Steeves, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
David Stevens, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Kim Wharram, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Brandon Wiener, Thorsteinssons LLP
John Yuan, McCarthy Tétrault LLP

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2012

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2011

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Robert Mainville, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Karen Sharlow, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Sean J. Harrington, Federal Court
The Honourable Sandra Simpson, Federal Court
The Honourable Gerald Rip, Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Eugene Rossiter, Associate Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Steven K. D’Arcy, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Judith Woods, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Mark Barbour, Thorsteinssons LLP
François Barette, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Neil Bass, Dentons Canada LLP
Chia-yi Chua, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Guy Gagnon, McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Angelo Gentile, Dentons Canada LLP
John Lorito, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Cliff Rand, Stikeman Elliott LLP
David Stevens, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, McMillan LLP
Kim Wharram, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Brandon Wiener, Thorsteinssons LLP

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2011

The Bowman Moot Committee 2012

Founding/Executive Committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Chief Justice Gerald Rip, Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Karen Sharlow, Federal Court of Appeal
Professor Emir Crowne, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law & Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Professor John P. Weir, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law & Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Mohamed Hashim, LLM Candidate, University of Toronto
Timothy Fitzsimmons, Associate, Dentons Canada LLP

Sub-Committee Members
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
Ahmad Adam, Anita Alvarez, Jenelle Ambrose, Jenna Chandani, Ryan Maynard,
Kathryn McCulloch, Fabian Monaco, Blake Moran, Carrie O’Hagan, Kelli Shoebridge, Kanika Suri, Lisa Telebar, Lionel Tupman

University of Windsor, Faculty of Law Volunteers
Jonathan Hendricks, Jack Yu

Tax Court Volunteers
Charmaine Coutinho, Romy-Alexandra Laliberte, Kang Lee, Geoffrey Metropolit, Daniel Morrison

The Bowman Moot Committee 2012

The Bowman Moot Committee 2011

Founding/Executive Committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Chief Justice Gerald Rip, Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Karen Sharlow, Federal Court of Appeal
Professor Emir Aly Crowne (né Mohammed), University of Windsor, Faculty of Law & Co-
Chair of the Bowman Moot
Professor John P. Weir, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law & Co-Chair of the Bowman Moot
Mohamed Hashim, Law Clerk to the Honourable Justice Roger Hughes, Federal Court
Timothy Fitzsimmons, Associate, Dentons Canada LLP

Sub-Committee Members
Dentons Canada LLP
Anita Alvarez, Andrew Black, Angelo Gentile, Jacob Kaufman, Carolanne Lowden,
Jonah Mayles, Adriana Morrison, Carrie O’Hagan, Meghan Thomas

University of Windsor, Faculty of Law Volunteers
Sabrina Fiacco, Jonathan Hendricks, Barbara Walancik, Jack Yu

 

The Bowman Moot Committee 2011

Donald G.H. Bowman

Bowman_Donald

As former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada, the Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman has extensive experience in resolving tax disputes. He is former counsel to Dentons’ National Tax Group and shares his expertise with members of the group as a mentor and adviser.

Recently retired, Mr. Bowman worked to enhance Dentons’ ability to reach early resolution of tax and related disputes for our clients. His practice at Dentons consisted of giving advice on tax matters to clients, lawyers in the firm throughout Canada and to lawyers in other firms.

Mr. Bowman has spent his entire legal career as a tax litigator. He joined the Federal Department of Justice – Tax Litigation Section soon after his call to the Ontario Bar and was appointed director in 1968. He joined the law firm of Stikeman, Elliott, Robarts & Bowman in 1971 and was a partner there until his appointment to the Tax Court of Canada. He was appointed Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in 1991 and Associate Chief Judge in February 2000. He was appointed Associate Chief Justice in July 2003 and Chief Justice in February 2005. Mr. Bowman joined Dentons in July 2008.

Donald G.H. Bowman

Winners

2019 Bowman Moot Winners

2019 Winners

Best Team: University of Windsor
Best Factum – Appellant: University of Windsor
Best Factum – Respondent:Western University
Best Advocate: Rishi Nageshar – Osgoode Hall Law School

2018 Bowman Moot Winners

2018 Winners

Best Team: University of Alberta
Best Factum – Appellant – University of British Columbia
Best Factum – Respondent – University of British Columbia
Best Advocate: Monica Carinci – University of Windsor

2017 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Calgary

Best Team: University of Toronto
Best Factum – Appellant – Queen’s University
Best Factum – Respondent – University of Windsor
Best Advocate: Jennifer Horton – University of British Columbia

2016 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Calgary

Best Team: University of Calgary
Best Factum – Appellant: University of Alberta
Best Factum – Respondent: University of British Columbia
Best Advocate: Martin Banach, York University, Osgoode Hall Law School

2015 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Windsor

Best Team: University of Windsor
Best Factum – Appellant: University of Victoria
Best Factum – Respondent: Western University
Best Advocate: Khalid Karim, University of Windsor

2014 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Toronto

Best Team: University of Toronto
Best Factum – Appellant: Western University
Best Factum – Respondent: University of British Columbia
Best Advocate: Sheena Lessard, University of Toronto

2013 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Alberta

Best Team: University of Alberta
Best Factum – Appellant: Western University
Best Factum – Respondent: University of Toronto
Best Advocate: Hamid Nuri, University of Ottawa

2012 Bowman Moot Winners

Western University

Best Team: Western University
Best Factum – Appellant: University of Alberta
Best Factum – Respondent: University of British Columbia
Best Advocate: Sameer Nurmohamed, University of Toronto

2011 Bowman Moot Winners

University of Windsor

Best Team: University of Windsor
Best Factum – Appellant: Osgoode Hall Law School
Best Factum – Respondent: University of British Columbia
Best Advocate: Lindsay Beelen, Osgoode Hall Law School

Winners

Sponsors

Sponsors

Mooting Schedule

The 2019 moot schedule will be published as soon as it is confirmed.

Mooting Schedule

Problem Clarifications

For the purposes of the Moot, are the parties allowed to raise issues of the standard of review (that is, the standard of review and effect of questions of law as opposed to questions of mixed fact and law) as related to ss. 84.1, 89(1) and 245 of the Income Tax Act?

Response

Moot Participants may raise issues and arguments pertaining to the standard of review. However, since the Moot is intended as a competition in the field of tax, rather than administrative law, Participants are encouraged to focus their issues and arguments on tax law and tax policy.


Éclaircissements

Aux fins du concours, les parties sont-elles autorisées à soulever des questions concernant la norme de contrôle applicable (c’est-à-dire la norme de contrôle et l’effet des questions de droit par opposition aux questions mixtes de fait et de droit) en ce qui concerne les art. 84.1, 89 (1) et 245 de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu?

Réponse

Les Participants peuvent soulever des questions et des arguments concernant la norme de contrôle applicable. Toutefois, le concours étant conçu comme une compétition dans le domaine de la fiscalité plutôt que du droit administratif, les Participants sont encouragés à concentrer leurs questions et leurs arguments sur le droit fiscal et la politique fiscale.

Problem Clarifications

Moot Rules

Download 2019 Bowman National Tax Moot Rules (English  | French)

These rules are designed to provide for fair and proper conduct during the competition. Any questions regarding these rules should be directed to the Bowman Moot Committee at bowman.moot@dentons.com.

Moot Rules

Moot Problem

Moot Problem

Moot Participants 2014

Moot participants 2014

Ottawa (Civil), 1A: Zeina El-Khoury, Lila Amara
Ottawa, 1R: Jennifer Katsaros, Dominic Bouchard

Alberta, 2A: Jason Pisesky, Stephen Dam
Alberta, 2R: Faiz-Ali Virji, Lindsay Burgess

Osgoode, 3A: Denisa Mertiri, Lou Chang
Osgoode, 3R: Jessica-Ann Buchta, Jesse Phipps-Williams
Osgoode, Alternate: Nathaniel Hills

Toronto, 4A: Kyle Gerow, Sheena Lessard
Toronto, 4R: Jonathan Barrentine, Chad Pilkington

British Columbia, 5A: Zhuo Chen, Jeffrey MacDonald
British Columbia, 5R: Kayla Strong, Patrick Walker
British Columbia, Alternate: Trevor Simpson

Calgary, 6A: Perry Kiefer, Rob Levis
Calgary, 6R: Rob Woodward, Lori MacKay

Western, 7A: Michele Qu, Samantha Wolfish
Western, 7R: Richard Zsolt, Rahul Gandotra
Western, Alternate: Chris Marta

Queen’s, 8A: Kit Skillicorn, Matt Jagodits
Queen’s, 8R: Kari-Anne Layng, Carl Petersen-Deeprose
Queen’s, Alternate: Craig Zeeh

Dalhousie, 9A: Andrew Nicol, Dave Dhillon
Dalhousie, 9R: Dante Manna, Neil McPhee

Moot Participants 2014

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2017

Members of the Judiciary
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Justice Wyman Webb, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Lucie Lamarre, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Boyle, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Gaston Jorré, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Frank Pizzitelli, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Bruce Russell, Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice Don Sommerfeldt, Tax Court of Canada

Members of the Bar
Wayne Adams, Canadian Tax Foundation
Diana Aird, Department of Justice
Peter Aprile, Counter Tax Law
Steven Baum, Gowling WLG
Monica Biringer, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Marty Boris, formerly Department of Justice
Nicolas Cloutier, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Sunita Doobay, Tax Chambers LLP
Martin Gentile, Department of Justice
Vince Imerti, Stikeman Elliott LLP
Justin Kutyan, KPMG Law
Jenny Mboutsiadis, Fasken Martineau LLP
Siobhan Monaghan, KPMG Law
Yoni Moussadji, Counter Tax Law
Christopher Slade, Deloitte Tax Law
Brandon Siegal, Siegal Tax Law
John Sorensen, Gowling WLG
Yves St-Cyr, Dentons
John Tobin, Torys LLP
Matthew Williams, Thorsteinssons LLP
John C. Yuan, McCarthy Tetrault LLP

 

The Bowman Moot Panelists 2017

About Dentons

Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge.

Now the world’s largest law firm, Dentons’ global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 158 locations serving 66 countries. www.dentons.com

About Dentons

Moot Committee

Executive committee of the Bowman Moot
The Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Justice David Stratas, Federal Court of Appeal
The Honourable Chief Justice Eugene P. Rossiter, Tax Court of Canada
Yves St-Cyr, Partner, Dentons Canada LLP and Chair of the Bowman Moot
Luc Grenon, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Law

View the 2018 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2017 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2016 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2015 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2014 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2013 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2012 Bowman Moot Committee

View the 2011 Bowman Moot Committee

Moot Committee

Photos

Photos

Event Schedule

Event Schedule

Useful Information

The Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot takes place in Toronto, Ontario at the Federal Courts Building located at 180 Queen Street West. For a map of the area, including the locations of other Moot events, please click here.


Le concours national de plaidoirie en droit fiscal Donald G.H. Bowman a lieu à Toronto, en Ontario, dans les locaux de la Cour fédérale situés au 180, rue Queen Ouest. Pour une carte de la région, y compris les lieux des autres événements du concours, veuillez cliquer ici.


Event Schedule

Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot – Events Map
Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot – Event Schedule


Useful Information

Welcome to FMC’s Test Blog Site

Please note that this is a mock website to visualize how the mid-market companies site would look like once developed.

Click on ‘Home‘ to preview the site.

Note: this page will not appear in the final version of the site.

Thank you,

FMC’s Digital Marketing Group

Welcome to FMC’s Test Blog Site

About The Moot

The Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot is Canada’s first competitive moot on taxation. The Moot is named after the Honourable Donald G.H. Bowman, former Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada.

The Donald G.H. Bowman Moot was founded in 2011 by Dr. Emir Crowne, Associate Professor, and Professor John P. Weir, both of the University of Windsor Law School, and the partnership of Dentons Canada LLP. It is administered by a committee of judges, practitioners, academics and students.

Students compete over two days in two preliminary rounds, semi-finals and the final moot before a panel of three judges. Winners are announced at a dinner on the last day of the Moot.

In 2017, we became a bilingual competition by allowing students to plead and prepare their written arguments in the official language of their choice. Interpreters are provided for bilingual moot(s).

The 2019 Bowman Moot Winner: University of Windsor
In alphabetical order: Stan Fedun, Cristina Fulop, Aaina Grover and Anish Kamboj with The Hon. Donald G.H. Bowman

The 2019 Donald G.H. Bowman National Tax Moot took place in Toronto on March 1-2, 2019.

Congratulations to all participating teams. And congratulations to our award winners:

  • Best Team: University of Windsor
  • Best Factum – Appellant: University of Windsor
  • Best Factum – Respondent: Western University
  • Best Advocate: Rishi Nageshar – Osgoode Hall Law School
About The Moot

Mergers & Acquisitions

Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) Group at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) is one of Canada’s most experienced in the gold, metals and minerals, oil and gas, power, technology and real estate industries.
Read more »
Mergers & Acquisitions

Toronto

Toronto

Corporate | Commercial

Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) Corporate | Commercial Group is recognized for its consistent ability to structure, negotiate and close complex or routine transactions efficiently and effectively.
Read more »
Corporate | Commercial

Calgary

Calgary

Taxation

The tax lawyers at Dentons Canada LLP creatively resolve tax issues, turning them from deal-breakers to deal-makers.
Read more »
Taxation

Vancouver

Vancouver

Financial Services

In the world of financial services, lenders, borrowers and underwriters look for sophisticated legal knowledge, depth and breadth of experience and superb client service. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) has a long history of providing precisely this type of financial services expertise.
Read more »
Financial Services

Montreal

Montreal

Edmonton

Edmonton

Ottawa

Ottawa