JUDICIAL CONCURRENCES AND DISSENTS: A COMPARATIVE VIEW OF OPINION-WRITING IN FINAL APPELLATE TRIBUNALS

Abstract

The author examines the effect of the single-opinion proposal, which stipulates that the Supreme Court of Canada should follow the precedent of the Privy Council. He does so by reviewing, in depth, the practice of the Privy Council, to show that following the proposal has not prevented individualized approaches or the development of alternative lines of precedent. He then surveys the work of final appellate tribunals in Commonwealth countries outside the United Kingdom, revealing that none of them strictly adheres to the single-opinion rule. Finally, he reviews the position in the United States to illustrate how multiple opinion writing militates against clarity and certainty, and to urge caution on the part of Canada should it take this route.