CONTRASTING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA IN RELATION TO LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONING IS BELIEVED TO BE AT THE HEART OF DIFFERING PATTERNS OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, COURT MAINTENANCE, AND ENHANCEMENT. PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY IN CANADA HAS LED TO EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS, WHILE THE AMERICAN SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT HAS ENCOURAGED ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS BY THE JUDICIARY. THE CANADIAN SYSTEM SEEKS TO LIMIT JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO ADJUDICATION BY ENTRUSTING THE OPERATIONS OF COURT ADMINISTRATION TO THE EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL OF THE PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS; WHILE THE AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM IS ADMINISTERED BY JUDICIAL PERSONNEL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A COMPLETE AND SEPARATE IDENTITY OF THE COURT SYSTEM APART FROM ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE CANADIAN SYSTEM IS MORE UNIFIED, AS ATTORNEYS GENERAL AT THE PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL LEVEL CAN OPERATE THE COURTS IN A MORE EFFICIENT AND COOPERATIVE MANNER IN RELATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. THE EFFORTS OF THE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE IDENTITY FROM OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES OFTEN LEADS TO FRAGMENTATION OF GOALS AND EFFORTS. CANADIAN JUDICIARIES HAVE PURSUED AN ENCAPSULATION STRATEGY THAT HAS EMPHASIZED THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY TO ADJUDICATE INDEPENDENTLY, WHILE ALLYING ITSELF WITH THE LEGAL COMMUNITY TO EXERCISE AN INFORMAL POWER IN AFFECTING ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATION OF THE COURTS. THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SOUGHT TO INCREASE ITS INDEPENDENT POWER BASE THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH THAT INTENDS TO MAINTAIN A BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. (RCB)