While prior studies have applied schema theory to belief systems in the mass public, it has yet to be used to assess attitudes held by elites in society. This article uses schema theory to suggest that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada employ an information processing model when deciding search and seizure cases. Specifically, it implies that the justices have a schema, or an organized set of attitudes, that are triggered by the factual and legal circumstances in particular search and seizure cases. The belief that justices would use such a heuristic device makes sense, given that they are expected to resolve disputes in a quick and efficient manner as well as maintain consistency in the law. The study uses factor analysis to provide evidence that there is an underlying structure to the attitudes that Canadian justices use in these cases (1984–1994). It adds to the prior research in this area, because it moves schema theory beyond the study of mass belief systems, and it represents a unique way of assessing the judicial decision-making process of Canadian justices since the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

No abstract

No abstract

This article assesses whether the same attitudinal dimension that dominates judicial decision-making in the United States-liberalism/conservatism-is also prominent in the Canadian context. Specifically, the study examines the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court Justices in non-unanimous post-Charter cases decided during the first five terms of the Lamer Court (1991-95). After employing factor analysis, which disclosed three principal dimensions underlying the voting behavior of the justices, we closely examined the cases scoring most positively and most negatively on each of the factors. The principal dimensions underlying the Charter rulings suggest three prominent attitudinal conflicts dominate this Court period: communitarianism versus libertarianism, fair trial and criminal due process disputes, and judicial activism versus judicial self-restraint. These dimensions corroborate the findings of studies that have tracked the development of the Canadian Court in postCharter years.

. This study discusses theoretical concepts from two strands of public law literature, namely rational choice accounts of strategic behaviour and notions of judicial leadership, and examines their relevance for explaining changes in judicial behaviour on the Canadian Supreme Court. Specifically, we test whether a justice who is elevated to the chief position strategically alters his/her patterns of judicial behaviour. The study uses a multiple regression equation that controls for rival hypotheses, and uncovers evidence of strategic change by all three modern chief justices. While Justices Dickson and Lamer appear to have consolidated their position as task leaders once they were promoted to the helm of the Court, Justice McLachlin made a remarkable change in her dissent behaviour to emerge as the preeminent social leader on her own Court. The study demonstrates that rational choice models of strategic behaviour and judicial leadership are useful theoretical frameworks for explaining changes in behaviour once recent Canadian justices were promoted to the chief position. Moreover, the findings illustrate the importance of incorporating critical institutional features when studying changing behaviour in other high courts around the world.Résumé. Cette étude discute des concepts théoriques de deux composantes de la littérature du droit public, à savoir les témoignages de choix rationnel en fait de comportement stratégique et les notions de leadership judiciaire, et examine leur pertinence pour expliquer les changements de comportement judiciaire à la Cour suprême du Canada. Plus précisément, nous cherchons à déterminer si un juge qui devient juge en chef impose des changements stratégiques à son comportement judiciaire. L'étude utilise une équation de régression multiple qui neutralise les hypothèses rivales, et découvre des preuves de changement stratégique chez les trois juges en chef contemporains. Tandis que les juges Dickson et Lamer semblent avoir consolidé leur position de responsables de tâche après leur accession à la tête de la Cour, Madame le juge McLachlin transforma son comportement de dissidente pour devenir le leader social confirmé de sa propre Cour. L'étude démontre que les modèles de choix rationnel en fait de comportement stratégique et de leadership judiciaire sont des cadres théoriques utiles pour expliquer les changements de comportement des juges canadiens récemment promus à la position de juges en chef. En outre, l'étude démontre qu'il est important d'incorporer certaines caractéristiques institutionnelles clés lorsqu'on examine les changements de comportement dans d'autres tribunaux de grande instance de par le monde.