Since the birth of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the Supreme Court has been charged with being an extremely activist Court responsible for initiating fundamental policy reform via its remedial powers (s. 24(1)). Relatively few studies exist, however, which attempt to evaluate the truth of these claims. Stated differently, few have studied whether judicial invalidation actually results in fundamental policy change. Utilizing dialogue theory as the framework of analysis, complemented with a modified approach to Matthew Hall’s (2010) theory of final appellate courts as ‘implementer-dependent’ institutions, the study attempts to fill this gap. By conducting six case studies of salient and controversial issues of public policy, and by analyzing the corresponding legislative sequels introduced by federal or provincial governments in response to judicial invalidation, the study attempts to measure the policy impact and legacy of the McLachlin Court, and to understand the conditions under which the Supreme Court behaves as a powerful policymaking institution. The thesis demonstrates that the Court’s policy clout is contingent on whether the federal or provincial legislatures, as the designers and implementers of public policy, create conditions favorable to judicial policymaking and the judicialization of politics. The findings illustrate that, given the right set of circumstances – namely when the Court delivers a decision that proves to be unpopular with the non-judicial actors responsible for enforcing the judicial ruling, and, as a result, when the responsible legislature introduces reply legislation that challenges, or ineffectively implements, the Court’s decision – judicial power will be rather limited.