Canada's Supreme Court decides cases with far-reaching effects on Canadian politics and public policies. When the Supreme Court sets cases on its agenda, it exercises nearly unrestrained discretion and considerable public authority. But how does the Court choose these cases in the first place?
Tournament of Appeals investigates the leave to appeal process in Canada and explores how and why certain cases "win" a place on the Court's agenda and others do not. Drawing from systematically collected information on the process, applications, and lawyers that has never before been used in studies of Canada's Supreme Court, Flemming offers both a qualitatively and quantitatively-based explanation of how Canada's justices grant judicial review.
The first of its kind, this innovative study will draw the attention of lawyers, academics, and students in Canada as well as in the Commonwealth or Europe, where the appeals process in the high courts is similar to that of Canada.
Roy B. Flemming is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas A & M University.
Figures and Tables Preface and Acknowledgments 1 Judicial Review and Agenda Setting: American Accounts and the Canadian Setting 2 Tournaments and Stratification of Canada's Supreme Court Bar 3 Litigants, Lawyers, and the Tournament of Appeals 4 Tournament Rules and the Consequences of Institutional Choices 5 The Court Game: Strategy and Consensus among the Tournament's Judges 6 Conclusion: Canadian Variations of American Themes Notes References Index