A case is said to be moot when the dispute between the
parties has been resolved, has vanished or faded away. With some
exceptions, a court will not hear or decide a case that is moot.4
The general rule of mootness is that courts will not decide hypothetical or academic questions and will decline to hear a case
where the outcome has no practical effect.
 There are exceptions to the mootness rule, and the court
has a jurisdiction to hear a moot proceeding in the interests of
justice.5 Where there is no live dispute between the parties but
there is the prospect that the contentious legal issue that
prompted the proceedings will repeat itself and remain unresolved and evasive of review, then the court may hear the matter
notwithstanding its mootness. In circumstances where the court
is in a position to make a fully informed decision and it is strongly
in the public interest for the court to express an opinion on a legal
issue that is uncertain but likely to recur, a court may decide to
hear a case that is moot.6
 While no single factor is dispositive, important factors
that govern the court’s discretion to hear a moot matter are:
(1) whether, despite the absence of a live controversy, the matter
will be fully argued and the court will be able to make a fully
informed decision; (2) whether the influence of the judgment
on the disputed issue will have practical value in other cases;
(3) whether the issue in the case is a matter of public importance
of which a resolution would be in the public interest; and
v. Alexander,  O.J. No. 6566, 2016 ONCA 961; Retief v. Ganjavi,
 O.J. No. 2118, 2013 ONSC 2654 (S.C.J.); M. (K.) v. Shammi, 
No. 683, 2012 ONSC 1102 (S.C.J.).
4 Schaeffer v. Ontario (Provincial Police) (2011), 107 O.R. (3d) 721, 
O.J. No. 5033, 2011 ONCA 716, at para. 44, vard (sub nom. Wood v.
Schaeffer)  3 S.C.R. 1053,  S.C.J. No. 71, 2013 SCC 71; Maystar
General Contractors Inc. v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades,
Local 1819 (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 451,  O.J. No. 1353 (C.A.);
Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education),  3 S.C.R. 3, 
S.C.J. No. 63, 2003 SCC 62, at para. 17.
5 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 342,  S.C.J.
No. 14; Doherty v. Horowitz,  O.J. No. 3915, 2016 ONSC 4457 (S.C.J.);
Maystar General Contractors Inc. v. International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, Local 1819 (2008), supra; Neto v. Klukach,  O.J. No. 394,
 O. T.C. 138 (S.C.J.).
6 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), supra; New Brunswick (Minister
of Health and Community Services v. G. (J.),  3 S.C.R. 46, 
S.C.J. No. 47; Tamil Co-operative Homes Inc. v. Arulappah (2000), 49 O.R.
(3d) 566,  O.J. No. 3372 (C.A.).