Prepare a short moot argument for one side of the case below. You will complete the attached CHART to help you prepare your argument and use that in advance of completing your argument. Then you will complete the Template FACTUM for the Respondent. Respondent: is a party that responds to an appeal made by an appellant and who defends the decision that led to the appeal Feel free to add arguments to your Factum with additional examples or comparisons to cases. Case: Mr. Schmoe is a well-known anti-semite in his small community where he hands out fliers and tries to get spots on T.V. and radio to broadcast his views. Schmoe is also a high school teacher. The Happy Future School Board has terminated Schmoe's job as a teacher, and the Superior Court agreed with the termination. Schmoe challenges the HFSB's decision and the Superior Court's approval in the Ontario Court of Appeal using the Charter. Questions Answer Reference Are you APPELLANT (Lost at trial, now bringing appeal), or are you RESPONDENT (defending the status quo, b/c you won at trial)? Which section of the Charter applies to your case (the most important section)? Identify the issue raised in your case S1: how is the law/decision "prescribed by law"? s.1: is the purpose of the law/decision "pressing & substantial"? s.1: is the law rationally connected to its purpose? s.1: Does the law go too far/is the impairment of the right minimal? Which case is relevant to your argument? What is similar about that case to your argument? What is different about that case to your argument? Respondent's Factum Facts 1. The basic facts of this case are [give an outline] Issue 2. The section of the Charter that applies to this case says [ quote It here] The Respondent concedes that s. . ., Charter was Infringed. 4. The legal question, In this case, Is, [state It here] s.1, Charter DOES save the Respondent's case 5. The Infringement Is prescribed by law in [tell where/how It is a part of law] 6. The purpose of the law/decision IS "pressing & substantial" because.. 7. The law/decision IS rationally connected to Its purpose because... 8. The law/decision Is not a minimal Impairment of the right of _ _ and does not overreach. [explain why] Conclusion . The present case IS/IS NOT similar to case, [explain why] 10. In the _ case, the holding was [tell what It was]. Therefore, the holding should be similar In the present case OR Because the facts are dissimilar, the holding In the present case should be different. Order Sought