[96] The Supreme Court of Canada in the Borowski –v- Canada (Attorney General) 29 discussed the doctrine of mootness and outlined the considerations that ought to be made by the court where the subject matter of the case has become moot.   [97] The court described a matter as being moot when “a decision will not have the effect of resolving some controversy affecting or potentially affecting the rights of the parties. Such a live controversy must be present not only when the action or proceeding is commenced but also when the court is called upon to reach a decision”.30 The court in this matter recognized that the court can hear a matter that is moot however in doing so the court must:  (i) “… determine whether the requisite tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared rendering the issues academic. (ii) If so it is then necessary to decide if the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case”31  (iii) … consider whether it should exercise its discretion decide the merits of the case despite the absence of the live controversy.”32  [98] The court in the Barowski case stated three basic factors that the court ought to consider. That in exercising its discretion whether to continue a matter that is considered academic or moot the court ought to look at the extent of which each of these factors is present. They are:  (i) “That the “court’s competence to resolve issues is deeply rooted in the adversarial system and a full adversarial context in which both parties have a full stake in the outcome which is fundamental to our legal system” 29  [1981] 1 S.C.R. 342   Page 3 of the judgment;  31  Page 3 of the judgment  32  Page 4 of the judgment  30   27