This article proceeds in three modes. The first briefly characterizes my reactions to the Chaoulli decision in June 2005 as a policy analyst and one of the experts in the Quebec trial testifying on behalf of Canada\u27s Attorney General. The second part discusses some of the commentaries of others in connection with this decision. The third-and the main section-deals with the Court majority\u27s use of international evidence in arriving at its decision and argues that the approach taken violated almost every scholarly standard for competent, cross-national policy analysis
