Sirota, LHarrington, M2017-08-062017-08-0620172017(2017) 78 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 31. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2974403https://hdl.handle.net/10292/10723Conventions are among the most important rules of the Canadian constitution. Yet orthodox legal theory does not recognize them as being rules of law, a view which the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed in the Patriation Reference. Nevertheless, both before and after the Patriation Reference, the Court's jurisprudence engaged with existing or alleged constitutional conventions. This article reviews this jurisprudence, and the scholarly commentary that responded to it. It concludes that the Court's endorsement of the orthodox view that there exists a rigid separation between conventions and law was poorly justified, and ought to be abandoned.SSRN supports the Open Access movement. All scholars may submit papers for free, and author-submitted content is downloadable at no charge by users world-wide.Constitutional conventions; Canada; Dicey; Patriation ReferenceJournal ArticleOpenAccess