This paper analyses the Canadian Supreme Court’s responsiveness to policy input from 1987 to 2010. While evolution of the Court’s docket has been studied by applying legal categories, this paper studies the Court’s agenda from a distinctively public policy perspective. The Court can shift its attention only within this pool of cases, i.e. among the “input” it receives. How responsive is the Court to this input? Does an increase in legal mobilisation within a policy field translate into more applications for leave to appeal being granted? Has the Court’s responsiveness changed over time? We compare applications for leave to appeal with appeals granted in terms of the policy issues raised. This allows us to transcend case-specific assumptions about the factors influencing the leave to appeal process, such as legal or resource related assumptions and attitudinal explanations, and to test whether increased legal mobilization causes shifts in the Court’s attention.
