List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1870–1879

This page lists all appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the Canadian courts, decided in the years 1870 to 1879.

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.

Case list Case name Citation Subject (Exact Text from Judgment) Judges (Author of decision in bold) Appeal Allowed or Dismissed On Appeal fromBoston and others v. Lelièvre and others UKPC 1"Their Lordships are not insensible to the importance of this case. At the same time they feel that they would not act rightly if they were to overrule the unanimous judgment of the Court below, upon a question of this nature, unless they were perfectly satisfied that the Judges had committed an error in refusing the exercise of their Appellate jurisdiction."Lord WestburySir James W. ColvileSir Joseph NapierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Young and Knight v. Lambert UKPC 5"In this case the Respondent claims the benefit of a seizure of goods, under a writ of fieri facias, issued on a Judgment recovered by him against Messrs. Maxwell and Stevenson, of Quebec, merchants. The writ was issued on , and certain goods, alleged to be the property of Messrs. Maxwell and Stevenson, were seized under the writ by the Sheriff. The Appellants opposed the execution on the ground that by a contract in writing, bearing date , the property of Maxwell and Stevenson in the goods in question was conveyed to them, and an authority to sell expressly conferred by Maxwell and Stevenson for the purpose of securing repayment of advances made by the Appellants on the faith of this contract; and as repayment had not been made, that the seizure under the writ should be set aside."Lord WestburySir James W. ColvileSir Joseph NapierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Quebec Marine Insurance Company v. Commercial Bank of Canada UKPC 18"This is an Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada, and the question to be determined is, whether or not the Appellants, who are the underwriters upon a policy of insurance, are, in the events that have happened, liable for the loss of the vessel insured by that policy?"Lord PenzanceSir William ErleLord Justice GiffardAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Nye v. Macdonald UKPC 40"In this case the Appellant, about twenty-one years ago, brought an action in the Courts of Lower Canada against the Respondent, for the recovery of a lot of land which is described in the pleadings. The Appellant claimed title to that lot under a grant originally made to a person of the name of John Rankin, and proposed to deduce his title from that John Rankin."Lord CairnsSir James W. Colvile Sir Joseph NapierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Morrison v. Dambourgès UKPC 24"This is an Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench of the province of Quebec, in Canada. That Court sustained a Judgment which had been given by what is called the Superior Court, and from both these Judgments the Appeal is now prosecuted to their Lordships."Lord Romilly, Master of the RollsSir James W. ColvileSir Robert Phillimore, Judge of the High Court of AdmiraltyAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Wardle v. Bethune UKPC 10"This was an appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench of Lower Canada at Montreal, in an action that arose out of a contract for building the new Cathedral church of that city."Sir James W. ColvileSir Joseph NapierSir John StuartSir Montague E. SmithAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)The Honourable Robert Jones v. The Stanstead Shefford and Chambly Railway Company UKPC 13This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench of Lower Canada, affirming a decision of the Superior Court of that Province, dismissing the Appellant's action. Whatever may be the precise technical nature of this action, it is plain that both in its substance and form it is founded on a supposed wrong done by the Railway Company to the Appellant in the erection of a Railway Bridge over the River Richelieu, by which he alleges that certain rights, conferred upon him by Statute as the owner of a Bridge over that River, have been unlawfully infringed.Sir James W. ColvileSir Robert Phillimore, Judge of the High Court of AdmiraltySir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Migneault v. Malo UKPC 15"This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for the Province of Quebec, which reversed the Judgment of the Superior Court for Lower Canada. The litigation relates to the execution of a will and the following short statement of facts is necessary."Sir James W. ColvileSir Robert Phillimore, Judge of the High Court of AdmiraltySir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Painchaud and others v. Hudon and others UKPC 25"The suit in which the decree under appeal was made was brought by the Respondents, who are traders in Canada under the firm of Hudon and Company, against the representatives of a M. Laurent. It was brought to recover a balance of $5,159 as the balance due upon four different promissory notes, three of which were made by M. Laurent in his lifetime, and one of which was made by one of his representatives after his death in favour of Hudon and Company."Sir James W. ColvileSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)McLaren and another v. Murphy and another UKPC 63"This was an Appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada, reversing the decision of the Superior Court in favour of the Plaintiffs (the Respondents). The action was brought by the Respondents, who are merchants in Quebec, against the Defendants (the Appellants) also merchants in Quebec, to recover damages for the non-delivery of timber under a contract, which is in these terms ..."Sir James W. ColvileSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Dame Marie Louise Herse and another v. Joseph Dufaux and others UKPC 87"In the year 1825 M. Pierre Roy, then of Montreal, by a notarial instrument dated , acknowledged and declared that he had made a donation by act inter vivos of a certain piece of land situate in one of the suburbs of Montreal, whereon five house had then been built, the rest consisting of meadow, orchard, and garden ground."Sir James W. ColvileSir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Redpath and others v. Allan and others (ship "Hibernian") UKPC 89"This is an Appeal from a Decree of the Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court of Lower Canada, in a cause of damage brought by the owner of a certain cargo laden on board of two barges, against the steamship 'Hibernian'."Sir James W. ColvileSir Robert Phillimore, Judge of the High Court of AdmiraltySir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedVice Admiralty Court of Lower CanadaBurstall and others v. Baptist UKPC 2"In this case the question is extremely short and simple, depending on the construction of a clause in the agreement made upon the dissolution of a partnership between Mr. Thomas Gordon and Mr. Baptist the Respondent."Sir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's BenchHamilton and Milton Road Company v. The Corporation of the Town of Dundas UKPC 16"This is an Appeal from an Order of the Court of Error and Appeal of Ontario in Canada, dated , varying a Decree of the Court of Chancery for the Province of Ontario, dated , and made on the hearing of a Cause wherein the Respondents were Plaintiffs, and the Appellants, with others, were Defendants."Sir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedOntario Court of Error and AppealCharles Leclère and others v. Jean Louis Beaudry UKPC 19"The late M. Pierre Leclère, the Appellant's testator, having obtained judgment against a Mr. Short for 50l., the price of a piece of ground, part of an orchard in Montreal, he had sold to him, the Sheriff seized the ground in execution. The Respondent (Beaudry) filed an opposition to the seizure as purchaser of the interest of person entitled to a share of the orchard under a deed of gift, and he sought to annul a previous sale made to Pierre Leclère himself, as well as the subsale by Leclère to Short."Lord Justice JamesSir Barnes PeacockLord Justice MellishSir Montague E. SmithAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Torrance and others v. The Bank of British North America UKPC 23"This is an Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada, by which they affirmed the Judgment of the Court below there, in which it was held that the Bank of British North America were entitled to recover a sum of 10,000 dollars and interest against Messrs. Torrance and Company."Sir James W. ColvileSir Barnes PeacockLord Justice MellishSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Our Sovereign Lady the Queen v Edward Coote UKPC 26, (1873), LR 4 PC 599"Edward Coote (the Respondent) was convicted of arson, subject to a question of law reserved by Mr. Justice Badgley (the Judge who presided at the trial) for the consideration of the Appeal side of the Court of Queen's Bench, in pursuance of cap. 77, sec. 57 of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada."Sir James W. ColvileSir Barnes PeacockLord Justice MellishSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Browning v. The Provincial Insurance Company UKPC 38"This is an Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada, affirming a Judgment of the Superior Court for the Province, which dismissed the Appellant's suit. The action was brought on a contract of insurance made with the respondents on 1,063 barrels of flour shipped in the schooner 'Babineau and Gaudry,' on a voyage from Montreal to St. John's, Newfoundland."Sir James W. ColvileSir Barnes PeacockSir Montague E. SmithSir Robert P. CollierAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)McConnell v. Murphy and others UKPC 40This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, (the Appellant,) who is engaged in the lumber trade and resides in Ottawa, against the Respondents, who are merchants at Quebec, for not accepting a quantity of timber under a contract of sale.