“In Ontario (Provincial Police) v. Thunder Bay (City) Police Service, 2015 ONCA 722 (CanLII), at paras. 31-32, the Court of Appeal discussed the matters that a court should consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to hear a moot case:
31 The formulation of guidelines for the exercise of discretion in departing from the usual practice is informed by an examination of the rationalia underlying that practice. To the extent that a particular foundation for the practice is either absent or its presence tenuous, the reasons for adherence to the practice disappear or diminish. An examination of the authorities does not yield a neat set of criteria: Borowski, at p. 358.
32 Three basic rationalia underpin the mootness doctrine:
i) that a court’s competence to resolve legal disputes is rooted in the adversary system that helps guarantee that issues are well and fully argued by parties who have a stake in the outcome;
ii) the concern for judicial economy; and
iii) the need for the court to demonstrate an awareness of its proper law-making function and the limits of that function so as to avoid intrusions into the role of the legislative branch: Borowski, at pp. 358-62.
At paragraph 36, the Court went on to state that consideration of these factor is not mechanical, rather “a court should consider the extent to which each of the three distinct rationalia for the mootness doctrine is present”.
Cuhaci v. College of Social Workers (Ontario), 2019 ONSC 1801 (CanLII) at 42-43