Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.
Fortunately for Canon, the decisive iso advantage is only at low iso...
The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.
I don't think it's hard to come up with real life scenes: I shot wildlife in the snow for the last days, and at noon I had a 600rt fill flash at manual/full power *plus* -100 highlight recovery *plus* +66 fill lights (everything above looks really bad) *plus* sometimes even tonal curve adjustments to squeeze a properly exposed scene out of the Canon raws.
Another typical scene type of are tripod night-time shots - I do bracketing anyway, but more dr = less bracketing necessary.
Yes, it all works after figuring out how to, but sometimes just barely - and problem with highlight recovery is that LR's autotone doesn't work and the shots get compressed in a non-linear way. For snow this is exactly what you want, for other highlights it often looks strange/dull and needs further post-processing wizardry.
So all in all: Yes, for my shots I would like more dr, actually as much as lower iso noise.