Based on a small qualitative study of three religious freedom cases, this article uses litigant narratives as springboards for reflection on the theme of inclusion in the Canadian political community. The article attends to the affective dimension of inclusion, focusing on whether participants felt included or excluded. Successful litigants told narratives of Canada as a country in which they could be included in public life without forgoing their religious practices. The narratives of unsuccessful litigants were more complex. These particular litigants did not have a desire to participate in public practices and institutions. Rather, their narratives understood religious freedom on a contractual basis, portraying their loss in court as a breach of covenant. Moreover, though these narratives contained themes of rejection and exclusion, participants said that they had faith enough in their eventual success that they would stay in Canada rather than emigrate.

This paper studies in a model à la Bebchuk how the existence of an asymmetric information on the risk aversion of parties engaged in a trial affects the way they litigate. We first consider the situation where the plaintiff is the informed party, and solve for the equilibrium with and without pre-trial negotiations. Then, we analyze the comparative static of the model and the effects of alternative fee-shfting rules. Finally, we discuss several extensions: the case where the defendant is the informed party, the influence of the representation of litigants’ preferences, and of the existence of the optimistic bias (or self-serving bias).