Law vs. legitimacy: Patriation, secession, and the role of the Supreme Court of Canada

In many constitutional cases, the Supreme Court of Canada must craft an opinion on matters not originally anticipated by drafters of the Constitution's text nor addressed by subsequent case law. The Patriation Reference and Secession Reference each placed the Court in this difficult position. Unique about these two cases was the Court's resort to unwritten constitutional principles to establish a distinction between law and legitimacy in constitutional matters.; This thesis reviews both decisions, and focuses on the Court's use of these unwritten principles to introduce the distinctions between constitutional law and constitutional legitimacy, between legal obligations, as defined by the Constitution's text, and constitutional, moral or political obligations, as defined by unwritten elements such as constitutional conventions and principles.; Ultimately, the thesis proposes that, while the Patriation and Secession Reference decisions depart from the Court's prior use of unwritten constitutional principles, these cases might indicate the emergence of a modified and useful role for the Court to fulfill in cases in which constitutional law and constitutional legitimacy diverge. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)...