ABSTRACT
Judicial disagreement on apex courts is powerful. It has positive aspects, including laying the necessary foundation for future legal developments. But it can be problematic if it casts doubt on the correctness of majority decisions. Chronic disagreement can even damage a Court's legitimacy. This chapter uses data science techniques to study judicial disagreement. It applies an expanded understanding that includes concurrences as well as dissents. This approach is especially well suited to a Court like the Supreme Court of Canada. The chapter examines rates of dissent and concurrence over time; the evidence of any correlation between dissents and the sitting Chief Justice; and those jurists (“High-Flyers”) who are especially likely to disagree with their colleagues.
