In this work, current Canadian conflict of laws principles arc canvassed in order to assess whether the methodology underlying the adjudication of conflicts cases has shed its formalist roots, and to determine the extent to which judges have become aware of the need to consider Canada’s constitutional realities when deciding such cases. Additionally, an examination of the applicability of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to questions of jurisdiction and choice of law is undertaken. It is argued throughout the thesis that the Supreme Court of Canada holds the key to integrating federalism concerns with conflicts cases. A survey of Supreme Court jurisprudence shows that such integration has occurred to a great extent with respect to enforcement of sister province judgments and to some degree regarding jurisdiction issues. Considerably less progress is evident in the choice of law area, however, and suggestions for reform are made throughout the work.