I actually agree with tyre on this. Canada has the Westminster system, meaning a Parliament where one or more parties forms a government. In Canada particular

I actually agree with tyre on this. Canada has the Westminster system, meaning a Parliament where one or more parties forms a government. In Canada particularly, party discipline is near absolute: you vote with your party or your party kicks you out. This means legislation is really passed on a party level. A party with a majority basically passes the legislation it wants to, with none of the horse-trading and whipping and deal-making that is common in the U.S. A minority gov't has to make a deal with another party to pass legislation, but that's between two entities, not the tens or hundreds of congresspeople who need to be corralled. The result of this is basically higher quality legislation: no loopholes to gain this Senator's support, no watering down or poison pills; but also, no extremist bills with clauses to trade away to buy support. The gov't passes the legislation it wants to, in the form it wants to, for good or ill. As a result, I believe, matters reaching the Supreme Court of Canada really are more narrow legal issues, not another avenue of attack on legislation. There can be significant rulings with broad implications, but overall, Canada's Supreme Court isn't a battleground because legislation isn't a mess offering a variety of vectors of attack. It's more internally coherent.