Canadian efforts at law reform, particularly in the areas of juvenile and adult probation, may seem inconsistent with this hypothesis. However, juvenile courts and their probation activities were slower to develop in Canada than in the United States. Similarly, when the contents of adult probation laws in the two countries are compared, the Canadian provisions are found to have been more restrictive. In addition, an analysis of the use of juvenile probation in the two countries finds that the Canadian use of informal procedures was potentially more intrusive and less attentive to due process. The paper concludes that these differences of philosophy and history suggest the dangers of precipitously applying American or any other foreign frameworks to the Canadian situation. Seven footnotes and about 50 references are included. (Author abstract modified)