Search and seizure cases in the Supreme Court of Canada: Extending an American model of judicial decision making across countries

Objective. The study utilizes a "bounded rationality" theory of judicial decision making often cited in the United States, and examines its validity in the Canadian context. It replicates previous studies by Segal (1984, 1986) and Segal and Spaeth (1993) to assess whether factual circumstances, along with attitudinal variables, influence the decision-making process of the Canadian Court in search and seizure cases. Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to analyze the impact of factual circumstances and ideology variables on 279 search and seizure votes in the first decade of Post-Charter cases (1984-94). Results. The logistic regression model correctly predicts 77 percent of the judicial decisions, providing a 25 percent improvement (proportional reduction in error) over the null model. More important, many of the same factual variables that prove significant in the U.S. cases are significant in Canada as well. In addition, this study demonstrates that ideology plays a role in shaping the decisions of Canadian justices in these cases. Conclusions. Overall, the study demonstrates the relevance of a U.S. model of judicial decision making for Canadian Supreme Court decisions. The findings suggest that further replication of the factual model may be warranted in other cultural settings.