The inter–institutional dynamics betweencourts and elected governments under the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms have recently, and widely, been characterized as a "dialogue"over constitutional meaning. This article seeks to expand the systematicanalysis of "dialogue" to lower courts of appeal, using Canadian federalgovernment responses as a case study. In the process, the articleclarifies the hotly debated operational definition of this metaphor, anddevelops two methodological innovations to provide a comprehensivemeasure of dialogue. The article's findings suggest that there ismore dialogue with lower courts than with the Supreme Court of Canada.However, the evidence indicates that dialogue in the form of governmentappeals to higher courts–which explicitly signal thegovernment's disagreement with the lower court–is asprevalent as legislative sequels, and the dominant form followingjudicial amendment.