List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1920–1929

This page lists all cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originating in Canada, and decided in the years 1920 to 1929.

From 1867 to 1949, the JCPC was the highest court of appeal for Canada (and, separately, for Newfoundland). During this period, its decisions on Canadian appeals were binding precedent on all Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Any decisions from this era that the Supreme Court of Canada has not overruled since gaining appellate supremacy in 1949 remain good law, and continue to bind all Canadian courts other than the Supreme Court.Debra Parks, Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Allard Faculty Publications, 2007), p.3, at

The Parliament of Canada abolished appeals to the JCPC of criminal cases in 1933Criminal Code Amendment Act S.C. 1932–33, c. 53, s. 17 and civil cases in 1949.Supreme Court Amendment Act, S.C. 1949 (2nd. session), c. 37, s. 3 Ongoing cases that had begun before those dates remained appealable to the JCPC.Bora Laskin, The Hamlyn Lectures, Twenty-First Series: The British Tradition in Canadian Law (London: Stevens & Sons, 1969), pp. 1–3, at The final JCPC ruling on a Canadian case was rendered in 1959, in Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield.

Cases

Case name Citation Subject (Exact Text from Judgment) Judges (Author of decision in bold) Appeal allowed or dismissed? On appeal from Toronto Railway Company v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto UKPC 1"This is an appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) dated , confirming an order of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board dated , which ordered the appellants to pay to the respondents the sum of $24,000. The appellants, the Toronto Railway Company, are the holders of an exclusive franchise to operate street railways in the city of Toronto for a period of thirty years from ."Viscount FinlayViscount CaveLord Shaw Appeal allowedOntario Supreme Court (Appellate Division)Toronto Railway Company v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto UKPC 2"The question in this case has reference to the removal of snow which falls on the lines of a street railway which runs through the city of Toronto. The judgments of the Court below have affirmed the liability of the appellants, the Railway Company, for the cost of the removal by the respondents, the city, of snow swept by the appellants form the tracks of their railway on to the solum of the streets on the side of the tracks."Viscount FinlayViscount CaveLord ShawAppeal dismissedOntario Supreme Court (Appellate Division)The Quebec Railway Light Heat and Power Company Limited v. G.A. Vandry and other UKPC 8"The principal object of this appeal is to settle the true construction of Article 1054 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada."Viscount CaveLord ShawLord SumnerLord ParmoorAppeal dismissed Supreme Court of CanadaThe Montreal Tramways Company v. Peter McAllister UKPC 16"The respondent in this case, Peter McAllister, is the guardian and father of Francis McAllister, and sues the appellants, the Montreal Tramways Company, for damage for personal injury to Francis McAllister. The facts are simple enough. Francis McAllister is a schoolboy, and with other school companions he was, on , going to the grounds of the Montreal Amateur Athletics Association, which are situated on the south side of the appellants' tramway lines."Viscount HaldaneLord BuckmasterLord Dunedin Appeal dismissedQuebec Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side)Rederiakatiebolaget Navigator v. Edmund L. Newcombe, K.C., C.M.G., the Proper Officer of the Crown UKPC 26"Their Lordships are much indebted to Counsel on both sides for the unusually complete and exhaustive survey of all possible authorities bearing on a most important question, but, for reasons which their Lordships will briefly state, they do not think it necessary to deal with this case in such a manner as would require that time should be taken for its further consideration."Lord SumnerLord ParmoorLord WrenburyThe Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Dickson)Sir Arthur ChannellAppeal allowed Exchequer Court of CanadaThe Ship 'Imo' v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique UKPC 27"La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, a French Company, are the owners of a ship named the 'Mont Blanc'. The Southern Pacific Whaling Company, Limited, are the owners of a ship named the 'Imo'. On , at about in the morning, these two vessels collided in the harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The 'Imo' was outward bound in ballast, the 'Mont Blanc' inward bound, heavily laden with high explosives. By the collision the 'Mont Blanc' was set on fire. Her cargo ultimately exploded with the most disastrous results. Many persons, including the Captain, Chief Officer, and the pilot of the 'Imo,' were killed, a portion of the city of Halifax wrecked, and the ship herself blown into pieces."Present at the Hearing: Viscount HaldaneLord DunedinLord AtkinsonThe Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Dickson)

Nautical Assessors: