We help you pass
your NCA exams.
- Hundreds of real exam-style questions & full mock exams. Every core subject, sat under the clock — the way exam day actually feels.
- Marked in minutes by Lexi. Your AI examiner marks your answers the way the NCA does — margin notes, four scored criteria, and exactly where to win more marks.
- A number that says when you're ready. A live NCA Readiness score per subject — so you stop guessing and start knowing.
The feedback gap
The problem isn't that you're not working hard. It's the silence.
The NCA hands you a reading list and a date. While you prepare, no one marks your practice answers — you get no feedback on how you're actually doing until results day, when it's too late to change anything. Most candidates walk in having never had a single answer marked against the criteria the NCA rewards. NCA Edge turns the lights on.
This is for you if…
- you're an internationally-trained lawyer and the NCA exams are the last thing between you and practising here;
- you're studying around a job, a family, a time zone — and need feedback at 11pm, not "someday";
- you can write a decent answer; you just can't tell yet whether it's a passing one.
Meet Lexi · your AI examiner
She reads your answer, marks it the way the NCA does, and tells you the truth - in minutes, at any hour.
NCA-grounded testing
A 700+ question bank, model-answered and re-checked across thousands of QA passes.
Marked to NCA criteria
Every question has its own marking key, built to the four criteria the NCA marks on.
Marked in minutes
Full written feedback minutes after you submit — any subject, any hour of the day.
Know you're ready
A live NCA readiness score tells you exactly how prepared you are before exam day.
How it works
Write like it's exam day. Get marked like the real exam — in minutes.
No setup, no waiting on a tutor. Pick something to work on and you'll have real feedback in minutes.
Sit a real question
Pick a single question or a full-length mock exam in any subject you own, and start it under timed, exam-like conditions.
Write your answer
Type it out just like the real thing — issue-spot, apply the law, reach a conclusion — then submit when you're done.
Lexi marks it
In minutes you get a score against the NCA's four criteria, a full breakdown, and your NCA readiness score.
Fix it, then prove it
Follow your plain-English road to a better grade, then take a second run — up to two attempts on everything.
Your NCA readiness score
"Am I ready?" — for once, you'll actually know. A weighted algorithm scores every answer by its exam marks, difficulty and type — a full mock or marked essay counts far more than a multiple-choice tap, tougher questions carry more, and only your best attempt ever counts. The score sharpens as you cover more ground, so you can sit the real exam with confidence.
What you get back
Every answer comes back marked. Not scored — marked.
The NCA gives you a pass/fail and silence. We give you a full marked script on every answer — real gradings below; tap a band to see how the feedback changes.
The question · Professional Responsibility · Short answer · 5 marks
A business commentator argues that "law is just another service business — lawyers sell advice for money like any other trade, and talk of a 'profession' is marketing." Explain what it means to call law a profession, what the idea of the public interest adds to that description, and how the business-versus-profession tension bears on the commentator's claim.
Lexi's marking · Professional Responsibility · Short answer
Lexi is an AI examiner — her marks and feedback are a study aid and can contain mistakes, so always double-check against the marking scheme and your own reading.
Lexi's summary
You have the shape of this right: you say clearly that a profession is more than paid work, you name specialised training and law-society regulation, you state the service ideal in your own words, and you give a defensible answer to the commentator. The problem is depth. The public-interest half of the question turns on one idea that is missing here — self-regulatory powers are granted on the understanding that the profession will exercise them in the public interest, so a law society holds those powers for the public and not for its members. Nothing is cited either: the Model Code Preface and Ryan each state that bargain in a single line, and the NCA is looking for an answer grounded in that authority. Your final paragraph asserts the conclusion, and the credit there comes from reasoning one concrete situation where the money motive has to give way. This answer is not yet at a passing level, but the distance is short — three or four sentences of the right content would move it a long way.
How to win more marks
- State the public-interest bargain explicitly, in two sentences: self-regulatory powers are granted to the legal profession on the understanding that it will exercise them in the public interest, so the law society governs as a trustee for the public, which is why competence, integrity and access are obligations. This recovers the most across issues and concepts.
- Cite your authority. Quote the Model Code Preface line on self-regulatory powers being exercised in the public interest, and Ryan's statement that self-government is granted in exchange for protecting the public interest. Use Ryan only for that proposition — its standard-of-review holding is out of date and should not be relied on.
- Reason the business-versus-profession tension on one concrete example: an over-billing incentive, a marketing claim that oversells, or a profitable retainer that would compromise your integrity. Show the commercial motive giving way to the professional duty, then close with your answer to the commentator. That converts your last sentence into real analysis.
The four criterion scores above are Lexi's marks against the NCA's criteria, and they add up to your total. The Earned / Partial / Lost tags just show where marks were won and lost across your answer.
The question · Constitutional · Essay · 15 marks
"In the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court gave Canada an amending rule that Part V nowhere contains: a legally binding duty to negotiate constitutional change. Whatever its political wisdom, this was amendment of the Constitution by the judiciary itself."
Critically evaluate this statement, with reference to the four underlying constitutional principles identified in the Secession Reference and to the amending procedures in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Lexi's marking · Constitutional · Essay
Lexi is an AI examiner — her marks and feedback are a study aid and can contain mistakes, so always double-check against the marking scheme and your own reading.
Lexi's summary
You state the holding accurately and early — the trigger is a clear majority on a clear question, the content is an obligation to negotiate, and you add the non-justiciability limit correctly; the four principles are named right, and your point that the Reference added no new procedure to Part V is the strongest defence available. The gap is one-sidedness. This is an essay, and the NCA is looking for critical engagement — weighing an argument's strengths against its weaknesses — so the statement's own case has to be put at full strength before you answer it. You compress it into a single clause about what the critique 'assumes' and then dismiss it; the real objection is textual (s. 52(3), Part V's exhaustive form, and s. 41(e)'s unanimity protection for the amending formula itself). Because the analysis stays on one side throughout, it falls under our essay floor for this course, and that caps the band here whatever the total says. Two other fixes will pay: state para 54's 'full legal force' before you reach for the convention label, and use para 69's right-to-initiate hook to ground your gap-filling claim in the text. The structure and the writing are already there — one honest paragraph for the other side would lift this a long way.
How to win more marks
- Give the textualist objection its own paragraph, at full strength, before you answer it: s. 52(3) provides that amendments shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada; Part V then sets out resolutions, thresholds, proclamations and time limits and never mentions negotiation; and s. 41(e) protects the amending formula itself with unanimity. This is the largest recovery available on this question, and it is also what lifts the essay off the floor.
- Anchor your gap-filling argument in the text using para 69: the Constitution Act, 1982 confers a right to initiate constitutional change on each participant in Confederation, and the existence of that right imposes a corresponding duty to engage in constitutional discussions. Support it with the Summary of Conclusions (para 148) — the Constitution is more than a written text — and s. 52(2)'s non-exhaustive list.
- State the principles' legal status as the Court stated it, then run your convention point as the tension it really is: para 54 says the principles may give rise to substantive legal obligations with full legal force, binding on courts and governments, while para 53 warns they are no invitation to dispense with the written text. Asking whether a duty no court will police can bear the label 'full legal force' is top-band work; asserting it is a convention without confronting para 54 loses marks.
The four criterion scores above are Lexi's marks against the NCA's criteria, and they add up to your total. The Earned / Partial / Lost tags just show where marks were won and lost across your answer.
The question · Criminal · Problem · 25 marks
Théo Bergeron spent a Saturday afternoon and evening drinking at a friend's apartment. On his own later account, confirmed by two friends, he drank most of a 26-ounce bottle of rye whisky along with several beers over roughly five hours. By late evening the friends describe him as heavily slurred, unsteady on his feet, and "making no sense" — one took his car keys away. Around midnight another guest, Marcus Reid, made a cutting joke about Théo's recent divorce. Théo picked up a cast-iron pan from the stove and swung it at Marcus's head, striking him twice; Marcus died in hospital that night from the head injuries. Théo was arrested at the scene. A breath sample taken about two hours later put his blood-alcohol concentration at roughly three and a half times the legal driving limit.
At trial Théo testifies that he remembers arriving at the party and "flashes" of the evening, but nothing of the moments around the assault, and that "sober, I'd never have laid a hand on Marcus — he was a friend." A forensic toxicologist testifies that at the blood-alcohol level involved a person's ability to foresee the consequences of their actions and to form a considered intention is significantly impaired, though people at that level ordinarily remain capable of purposive physical movement. Théo is charged with second-degree murder under s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code.
Advise on Théo's liability. Address the mens rea for murder under s. 229(a); how the defence of intoxication operates and to what degree it is available on these facts; whether intoxication can lead instead to a conviction for an included offence; and how the burden of proof operates. You are not asked about sentencing or any other offence.
Lexi's marking · Criminal · Problem
Lexi is an AI examiner — her marks and feedback are a study aid and can contain mistakes, so always double-check against the marking scheme and your own reading.
Lexi's summary
You get the architecture of this question right, and that is most of the battle: murder under s. 229(a) is a specific-intent offence, intoxication can negate that intent, and the correct result is not an acquittal but a conviction for the included offence of manslaughter. You also keep the Crown's burden on the elements in view. Two things hold the mark down, and they are linked. The important one is the burden of the intoxication defence, which you put the wrong way round: you say Théo must "establish on a balance of probabilities" that he could not form the intent. That is the test for the extreme, automatism-level defence in Daviault; for the advanced intoxication that negates a specific intent, the accused carries no persuasive burden and need only raise a reasonable doubt about whether he actually formed the intent (Robinson). The error grows out of the second problem — you label the intoxication "extreme" and reach for automatism, when the toxicologist gives you advanced intoxication: impaired foresight, but purposive movement, which is exactly what negates specific intent without opening the automatism route. Fix the degree and the burden falls into place; then pin Robinson and Daley and work Théo's own conduct against the intent question, and this becomes a strong answer.
How to win more marks
- Correct the burden and name the case that fixes it. For advanced intoxication negating a specific intent, the accused bears no persuasive burden — the Crown must still prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt about whether he actually formed it (R v Robinson). Reserve "balance of probabilities" for the separate extreme-intoxication (automatism) defence in Daviault, which is not what these facts are.
- Use Daley's three degrees precisely. Mild intoxication is no defence to anything; advanced intoxication may negate the specific intent for murder and is what you have here; extreme intoxication, akin to automatism, is a distinct route these facts — purposive movement, still capable of action — do not reach. Name the degree, then show why the facts sit in it.
- Work Théo's conduct against s. 229(a) instead of asserting the conclusion. Two deliberate blows to the head with a heavy pan, in answer to a specific remark, is evidence from which a jury could still infer the intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death (s. 229(a)(ii)). Weigh that against the intoxication evidence and the gaps in his memory, and explain why a reasonable doubt on intent remains. That weighing is what the analysis marks are for.
- Deal with the fact that tempts the wrong answer. "Sober, I'd never have laid a hand on Marcus" speaks to Théo's character, not to the intent he actually formed when he swung the pan — it is no evidence he lacked that intent in the moment. Name that line and set it aside; leaning on it is the trap this question sets.
The four criterion scores above are Lexi's marks against the NCA's criteria, and they add up to your total. The Earned / Partial / Lost tags just show where marks were won and lost across your answer.
The question · Administrative · Memo · 20 marks
Marcus Deane, a registered professional planner of eighteen years, was found by the Board of Professional Planners to have committed "conduct unbecoming" under ss. 2 and 20 of the (fictional) Professional Planners Act ("the Act") for op-eds and social-media posts attacking the province's housing-density reforms and calling the Minister of Housing "captured by developers." The panel reprimanded him, suspended his registration for six months and ordered a "professionalism" course; its reasons say public confidence "must come first" and do not mention freedom of expression.
The relevant provisions read:
2 "conduct unbecoming" means conduct that undermines public confidence in the profession.
20 A discipline panel may reprimand a member, suspend the member's registration or impose conditions where satisfied the member has engaged in conduct unbecoming.
24 Before making a decision, the panel shall give the member notice of the allegations and an opportunity to be heard.
31(1) A member may, with leave, appeal a decision to the Court of Appeal on a question of law only.
31(4) Except as provided in subsection (1), a decision is final and not subject to review.
This question: advise Deane on the standard(s) of review. On what standard does a court review (a) the Board's discretionary decision insofar as it limits his s. 2(b) freedom of expression; (b) his argument that punishing pure political speech falls outside the s. 2 power / is a constitutional question; and (c) any question of law taken up on the narrow s. 31(1) appeal? Apply the approach in Vavilov and Bell Canada. Identify only the standard of review for each issue — do not go on to decide whether the Board's decision actually meets that standard, and do not address remedy. [The Act, the Board and all parties are fictional; take the provisions as printed.]
Lexi's marking · Administrative · Memo
Lexi is an AI examiner — her marks and feedback are a study aid and can contain mistakes, so always double-check against the marking scheme and your own reading.
Lexi's summary
You handled the hardest part of this question well. The three standards stay on three separate tracks, you say plainly that a Charter right being engaged leaves the review on Doré reasonableness, and you cite Vavilov ¶ 57 for it. Your point in (c) is the strongest thing in the memo: the Doré proportionality assessment is mixed fact and law, so a s. 31(1) appeal limited to "a question of law only" does not pull it onto correctness. The main thing to build on is part (b). You lay out both possible characterisations and then leave the choice open, but the question asks you to advise Deane — commit to the answer: his argument that the s. 2 power cannot reach pure political expression at all is a constitutional question on a correctness track, live at the same time as the Doré challenge. The second gap is authority. The NCA is looking for the governing line of cases, and Doré here is carried by Loyola, Trinity Western and CSFTNO; naming them at the framework would have made part (a) much stronger. This is well-organised, accurate work — close (b) and add those cases and you are at the top of this question.
How to win more marks
- In part (b), give Deane an answer instead of two options. State that his argument — that ss. 2 and 20 cannot constitutionally reach pure political expression — is a constitutional question reviewed for correctness, and that both his arguments are live at once, each on its own standard.
- Add the hinge from Vavilov ¶ 57 in one sentence: where a decision's effect limits a Charter right, Doré reasonableness governs; where the challenge goes to the enabling provision itself, correctness governs (the Martin line, which Vavilov left standing). That single sentence explains why (a) and (b) diverge.
- Name the Doré line at the framework: Loyola (the balancing must be robust), Trinity Western (applied to a regulator) and CSFTNO (extends to Charter values, working the same justificatory muscles as s. 1). Then add one line in (c) recording that Dunsmuir's four-factor selection is superseded and expertise no longer selects the standard.
The four criterion scores above are Lexi's marks against the NCA's criteria, and they add up to your total. The Earned / Partial / Lost tags just show where marks were won and lost across your answer.
Representative Lexi marking.
From the blog
NCA exam study guides & strategy.
How NCA Exams Are Marked: An Examiner's-Eye View
The 50% pass mark surprises people. Here are the four criteria NCA examiners actually score on a written answer — and where marks quietly leak away.
8 min readAre NCA Exams Open Book? How to Write Answers That Score
Open book fools people. Here's how to structure an NCA answer, budget your time, and build notes you can actually find in three hours.
8 min readThe Hardest and Easiest NCA Exams, Ranked (and What Order to Sit Them)
Which NCA subject is hardest, which is most manageable, and the order to sit the five core exams.
8 min readNCA Criminal Law: A Worked Problem (Where Marks Are Won)
A fictional assault fact pattern, worked the way the NCA marks it — proving application, not recitation, is where the marks live.
10 min readFailed an NCA Exam? A Calm, Strategic Re-Sit Plan
A calm, practical game plan for re-sitting an NCA exam after a fail — the facts you need, and how to fix the real problem.
8 min readPricing
Buy one subject, or all five.
Every course gives you 3 months' access from a start date you choose, with up to 2 attempts on every question and mock exam — so you can stagger your sittings and still buy the full set at once.
All prices are in Canadian dollars (CAD).
- 129 Mock NCA practice questions
- 75 multiple-choice
- 27 short-answer
- 18 problem questions
- 9 essays
- 3 full mock exams
- Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
- Pass guarantee
- 119 Mock NCA practice questions
- 68 multiple-choice
- 28 short-answer
- 12 problem questions
- 7 jurisdiction
- 4 essays
- 3 full mock exams
- Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
- Pass guarantee
- 131 Mock NCA practice questions
- 76 multiple-choice
- 33 short-answer
- 12 evolving fact patterns
- 7 problem questions
- 3 essays
- 3 full mock exams
- Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
- Pass guarantee
- 126 Mock NCA practice questions
- 72 multiple-choice
- 25 short-answer
- 16 problem questions
- 9 evolving fact patterns
- 4 essays
- 3 full mock exams
- Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
- Pass guarantee
- 126 Mock NCA practice questions
- 72 multiple-choice
- 26 short-answer
- 20 problem questions
- 4 essays
- 4 evolving fact patterns
- 3 full mock exams
- Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
- Pass guarantee
More subjects coming soon.
All five core NCA courses
The NCA Edge pass guarantee
We don't win when you buy — we win when you walk out. Sit the exam, don't pass, and you get another three months on that subject — free. Send us your result and your extended window starts whenever you're ready to go again. The goal isn't to sell you access; it's to get you through the exam.
No card required
Try Lexi free — one real question, fully marked.
Create a free account, pick any subject, and sit one genuine exam question under the clock. You'll get the full marked script back — score, breakdown and all.
Takes a minute to set up — then the marked script is yours to keep. No payment details needed.