After the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) adopted a US-style entrenched bill of rights while maintaining its common law heritage. Did this institutional transformation shift the Court’s reasoning patterns toward American approaches and away from British frameworks—and if so, to what degree? We develop a tri-court diachronic approach using geometrically-aligned word embeddings, representing judicial language in geometric space where the “shape” of each court’s language captures relationships among legal concepts and reasoning frameworks. Procrustes alignment measures directional convergence and divergence between the SCC, US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and UK apex courts (UKHL/UKSC) from 1950 to 2025. We focus on residual geometry—the systematic patterns remaining after optimal alignment—to identify directional shifts in how courts position themselves relative to one another over time. Rather than imposing a priori periodization, we let temporal patterns emerge from the data, examining whether detectable shifts correlate with major institutional reforms (e.g., 1982 Charter adoption, 1998 UK Human Rights Act, 2009 UK Supreme Court creation). If convergence appears concentrated around specific reform dates, this strengthens the inference that constitutional reforms drove changes in reasoning rather than gradual drift in topic distribution or global legal homogenization.