The only competition of its kind in Canada, Davies' annual Corporate/Securities Moot provides an opportunity for top students from Canadian law schools to debate current legal issues in corporate and securities law with senior practitioners from Toronto law firms and corporations, regulators from the Ontario Securities Commission and judges.

Eleven law schools from across Canada participated in this year's Moot held in Toronto on March 4 and 5. The two top teams, the University of Toronto and Dalhousie University, competed in a final round before a five-member panel, consisting of Justice Ian Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justices John Laskin and Kathryn Feldman of the Ontario Court of Appeal, The Honourable Michel Proulx, former Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal and now a Partner of Davies in the Montreal office, and Mr. Paul Moore, Vice Chair of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The University of Toronto won top prize with a team consisting of Ryan Ashmead, Brendan Brammall, Catherine Powell and Evan Thomas. The team of Thomas Arnold, Drew Demerse, Scott Lytle and David Noseworthy from Dalhousie placed second, and the University of Calgary's team of Andrew Bateman, Flavia Boll, Tai Cheng, Andy Hayher and Joseph Cumming claimed third place. Catherine Powell of the University of Toronto was named top oralist of the Moot, second place oralist was Frank Lamie of the University of Western, and Brendan Brammall and Evan Thomas, both of Toronto, tied for third place oralist.  Factum prizes were awarded to the University of British Columbia, Dalhousie University and the University of Calgary for their first, second and third place rankings, respectively.

The students were tested on their written advocacy (presented in a factum delivered one month prior to the competition) and their oral advocacy. Each student was required to argue twice during the two-day competition, once on behalf of the appellant and once on behalf of the respondent.

In the Moot problem, the founder of a corporation retires and his ungrateful successors decide to take the business in a different direction and to restructure his equity interest in some tricky ways, without his consent.  He heads to court, crying "oppression"! The problem, written in the form of a trial judgement and appeal judgement, was developed by Michael Disney of Davies.