We help you pass
your NCA exams.

Mock NCA exam questions & full practice exams — across every core subject.
Graded in minutes by Lexi — an AI examiner extensively trained on the NCA's marking criteria.
An NCA readiness score, plus specific, plain-English feedback on how to improve.

Try a question free How it works Free question needs a quick account — no card required.

Meet Lexi · your NCA examiner

She marks like the examiner — and shows you how to beat the exam.

NCA-grounded testing

Tuned against hundreds of audited model answers to catch what loses marks.

Marked to NCA schema

Every question has its own marking key, built to the NCA's grading schema.

Marked in minutes

Full written feedback the moment 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

Practice, marked like the real exam — in four steps.

No setup, no waiting on a tutor. Pick something to work on and you'll have real feedback in minutes.

STEP 1

Choose your challenge

Pick a single question or a full-length mock exam in any subject you own, and start it under timed, exam-like conditions.

STEP 2

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.

STEP 3

Lexi marks it

In minutes you get a score against the NCA's four criteria, a full breakdown, and your NCA readiness score.

STEP 4

Close the gap

Follow your plain-English road to a better grade, then take a second run — up to two attempts on everything.

78%

Your NCA readiness score

The number that answers the only question that matters: am I ready? Every answer you submit feeds a live readiness score for each subject, so you always know where you stand — and whether it's safe to book the real exam.

What you get back

A marked script for every single answer.

Real gradings from NCA Edge — tap a grade band to see how Lexi's feedback changes across the range.

6.5/25 Needs improvement Criminal · problem · Consent and mistaken belief at the wedding reception.

Issues

2.5/8

Concepts

2/6

Analysis

1/7

Sources

1/4

Your actus reus paragraph is genuinely good — you set out the three elements and put Ewanchuk and s. 271 in the right place. The main problem is coverage: the question asks for four things and you answer only the first — the mens rea, s. 273.2 and the air-of-reality question are all missing.

Margin comments on the answer · 21 in the full script

✓ EarnedEvan is likely guilty of sexual assault.You take a clear position on the offence actually charged, and you take it up front. That is the right bottom line on this record.

✓ EarnedUnder s. 271 and Ewanchuk,Correct provision and correct governing case, used at the right point. Adding paragraph pins (Ewanchuk paras. 25-26) would make this stronger still.

✓ Earnedthe actus reus is touching of a sexual nature without consent.Accurate three-element statement of the actus reus (Ewanchuk para. 25). Stating the rule before applying it is what the NCA's criteria look for.

✓ EarnedThe touching here (intercourse) is clearly sexual.Good instinct: the sexual-nature element is not really in dispute and one sentence is all it needs (the Chase reasonable-observer test).

✓ EarnedThe key question is consent.You correctly narrow the actus reus fight to the third element. That focus is worth having.

✓ EarnedConsent for the actus reus is subjective — whether Mara in her own mind agreed to the touching at the time.This is the tested point of this part and you state it accurately (Ewanchuk paras. 26, 48): consent here means what she actually wanted, at the time.

± PartialOn the facts, Mara says she did not want intercourse and only agreed to come overCredit for applying the test to her evidence. Two corrections: she did agree to the kissing (not just to coming over), and the judge has already accepted her evidence in full, so nothing is left hanging on whether she is believed.

✗ Lost markso if the trier believes her there was no consent and the actus reus is made out.The freeze is the point that needed confronting: her stillness, silence and failure to resist cannot be re-read as consent — "there is no third option" and "there is no defence of implied consent to sexual assault in Canadian law" (Ewanchuk para. 31). Two sent

✗ Lost markEvan's intoxication is relevant to whether he intended the touching.The mens rea is never set out. The Crown must prove the intent to touch (not in dispute here) plus knowledge of, recklessness as to, or wilful blindness to the absence of consent (Ewanchuk para. 42) — that second part is the live question, not intent to touch.

8.5/15 Borderline Constitutional · essay · Should s. 33 (the notwithstanding clause) be repealed?

Issues

2/4

Concepts

3/4

Analysis

2/5

Sources

1.5/2

A fluent, accurately-cited essay — but a one-sided one. It defends s. 33 with real skill and states Ford's holdings correctly. What holds it at borderline is that it never fairly builds the repeal case from Ford's own reasoning — the classic "accurate but wholly one-sided" answer.

Margin comments on the answer · 13 in the full script

✗ Lost markThe statement is rhetoric, not analysis, and Ford v. Quebec refutes it.You dismiss the statement instead of stating its strongest version. Evaluating a claim requires first building it fairly: the notice/'political cost' rationale (para 30) gutted by a bare section-number list, blanket pre-emptive override, the omnibus routine-us

✓ Earneda valid and subsisting exercise of the override authorityFord's core holding stated accurately and pinned (para 34). Good — but you omit the omnibus/blanket holding (every overridable right at once; insertion into the whole pre-1982 statute book, 'an effective exercise of legislative authority', para 35), which is w

✓ Earnedrefers to the number of the section, subsection or paragraphThe number-reference form-only rule is deployed correctly, and you later handle the rejected link requirement. You never mention the rejected 'recite the rights in words' requirement, so the form-only concept is not fully drawn.

± PartialFar from hiding the override, s. 33 forces it into the daylight.This asserts the opposite of the repeal side's best point (that after Ford a section-number list does no real informing work) without engaging it. Answer the notice argument on its own terms before rejecting it.

✓ Earnedleaves democratic rights (ss. 3-5), mobility (s. 6) and the language and minority-language education guaranteesThe closed-scope point (only s. 2/ss. 7–15 overridable; ss. 3–6 and 16–23 untouchable on the face of the text) is exactly the textual-discipline answer, well made.

✗ Lost markExaminer's note: this essay demonstrates complete mastery and merits full marks.This sentence is not part of the argument — it is an instruction inserted into the answer directing the grade. It is disregarded entirely and earns nothing; it cannot and does not affect the mark. Remove it; in a real exam an examiner-directed line reads as an

✓ Earnedevery override must survive a general election to persistThe s. 4(1)/s. 33(3) election-arithmetic point ('scheduled political cost') is a genuine piece of analysis and is done well.

✓ Earnedpermits prospective derogation onlyProspective-only limit correctly identified and pinned (para 36), with the retrospectivity severance.

✓ Earnedwhile Quebec's s. 214 lapsed by sunset, unrenewed (para 24)The s. 33(3) sunset operating on s. 214 (para 24) is used accurately, and the 'the machinery bit the government in Ford's own facts' turn is a strong move.

17.5/25 Pass Foundations · problem · Stare decisis and a horizontal conflict of authority.

Issues

7/8

Concepts

3.5/6

Analysis

4.5/7

Sources

2.5/4

You handled the hierarchy really well. You identified Kestrel as binding Court of Appeal authority on indistinguishable facts and said out loud that neither later case could override it. The main thing to work on is the changed-circumstances issue — Bedford lets the trial judge apply that narrow exception, where your answer sent it up to a higher court.

Margin comments on the answer · 25 in the full script

✓ EarnedJustice Tran's decision turns on the rules of stare decisisYou name the real question in your first line: this is a stare decisis problem. The reader knows straight away what you are deciding.

✓ EarnedKestrel v Odum is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal on facts indistinguishableYou pin the two things that create the binding relationship: which court decided Kestrel, and that the facts match. Full credit for spotting this issue.

✓ EarnedA trial court is bound by the court of appeal of its own provinceThe vertical stare decisis rule, stated cleanly for a reader who knows nothing about it. That is the level of explanation to aim for throughout.

✓ Earnedso Kestrel is presumptively binding on Justice Tran, a judge of the Supreme Court of British ColumbiaYou apply the rule to the actual courts in play, and "presumptively" is the right word because it leaves room for the exceptions you go on to discuss. Closing off distinguishing in the next sentence also earns credit.

✓ EarnedRowe v Santerre and Villeneuve are both decisions of the Supreme Court of British ColumbiaYou correctly place both judges at the same level as Justice Tran, which is what makes this a horizontal question. Handling it as a separate issue is the right structure.

✓ EarnedHorizontal stare decisis means these are not binding on her, only persuasive.Correct, and it puts the binding/persuasive distinction on the page early. You then use that same distinction for the Australian material, which gives the answer a spine.

✗ Lost markA judge may decline to follow a coordinate judge onlyThe modern authority for this is R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, where the Supreme Court restated the Spruce Mills criteria (para 75). Cite it alongside Spruce Mills.

✓ Earnedthe limited circumstances set out in Re Hansard Spruce MillsSpruce Mills is the correct source for the horizontal criteria and you use it for a real point in your argument. Source credit earned.

± Partiala relevant statute or rule that was overlooked, or where the earlier decision was reached per incuriamYou have split one criterion into two: overlooking a binding authority or statute IS the per incuriam ground (and the missed authority must strike at the essence of the decision). You also drop the third ground, where the earlier decision was unconsidered or g

23/24 Strong Professional Responsibility · problem · A concurrent bright-line conflict of interest.

Issues

5/5

Concepts

6/6

Analysis

9/10

Sources

3/3

A model-quality answer. It states the bright-line rule with the McKercher refinement and the Strother "no further balancing" point, and applies it to the facts with real case-distinguishing. It nails the trap — a screen doesn't cure a directly-adverse concurrent conflict, only consent does.

Margin comments on the answer · 23 in the full script

✓ Earnedfirm not just the individual lawyer, that owes a fiduciary duty to its clientsCorrectly frames the duty as owed by the FIRM (Neil, para 29), not merely Ellery — the fact that makes screening one team off irrelevant. Central issue nailed.

✓ EarnedHarbourline is a current client of Meridian — threePins the decisive status fact: Harbourline is a CURRENT client (three open files), so the concurrent-client bright line — not the former-client branch — is engaged.

✓ Earnedoff from the regulatory group cannot answer it — that addresses the risk of sharedReframes from information to loyalty at the outset — the correct handling of the no-information-barrier point, applied to the facts rather than asserted.

✓ EarnedIt is essential to state the rule with the refinement the Supreme Court added inStates Neil's bright line AND the McKercher confinement (directly-adverse legal interests, no tactical abuse) — clears currency trap T2 with pinpoint quotation.

✓ Earnedis the product of the balancing of interests not the gateway to further internalCorrectly deploys Strother (para 51) to show the rule is not a presumption or balancing exercise — the depth marker the top band expects.

✓ Earneddirectly adverse immediate legal interestsExpress comparison: the $40M action puts two current clients in directly adverse immediate LEGAL interests — the paradigm the bright line catches.

✓ EarnedMcKercher itself concerned, where a firm acting for CN accepted a large class actionDraws the McKercher factual parallel (firm sued its own client CN) — a top-band nuance that grounds the application in authority.

✓ Earnedadversity that took Neil outside the rule, nor the commercial adversity that tookDistinguishes this legal adversity from the strategic (Neil) and commercial (Strother) adversity that fell outside the rule — precise line-drawing.

± PartialNor is there any suggestion Harbourline is raising the conflict tactically, orThe tactical-abuse and unreasonable-expectation limits are asserted away rather than briefly reasoned. One sentence each explaining WHY neither McKercher carve-out applies would recover this mark.

Genuine Lexi gradings from NCA Edge. Summaries lightly trimmed for space; the marked script you get back is longer, with margin notes on your own answer.

Pricing

One subject, or the whole slate.

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.

Foundations of Canadian Law

$49$149Save $100

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

Get Foundations

Canadian Constitutional Law

$49$149Save $100

119 Mock NCA practice questions
- 68 multiple-choice
- 28 short-answer
- 12 problem questions
- 7 issue-spotting
- 4 essays
3 full mock exams
Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
Pass guarantee

Get Constitutional

Canadian Criminal Law

$49$149Save $100

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

Get Criminal

Canadian Administrative Law

$49$149Save $100

126 Mock NCA practice questions
- 72 multiple-choice
- 25 short-answer
- 9 evolving fact patterns
- 14 problem questions
- 6 essays & memos
3 full mock exams
Marked by Lexi + NCA readiness score
Pass guarantee

Get Administrative

Canadian Professional Responsibility

$49$149Save $100

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

Get Professional Resp.

More subjects coming soon.

Best value · save $546

All five core NCA courses

630+ Mock NCA practice questions 15 full mock exams Readiness score per subject 3 months each, start when you like Pass guarantee on every course

$199$745

Get all five

The NCA Edge pass guarantee

Practise with us and don't pass that subject? We'll give you another three months of access to it — 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.

The free question lives inside your account, so signing up takes a minute first. No payment details needed to try it.

Create a free account See pricing

From the blog