List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1900–1909

This page lists all appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the Canadian courts, decided in the years 1900 to 1909.

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 from Wentworth v. Mathieu UKPC 5"The question in this Appeal arises upon an Act of the Legislature of Canada 27 and 28 Vict. cap 18 commonly called the 'Temperance Act of 1864.' Section 12 of this Act prohibits the sale of any spirituous or other intoxicating liquor unless it be for exclusively medicinal or sacramental purposes or bonâ fide use in some art, trade, or manufacture."Lord HobhouseLord DaveyLord RobertsonSir Richard CouchAppeal allowedQuebec Superior CourtEddy v. Eddy et vir UKPC 16"The Appellant in this case is a gentleman residing at Hull in the Province of Quebec. The Respondent who resides in the same place is his only child. She is married to a Mr. Bessey who is a formal party to the litigation, but the spouses are separate as regards property, and she is substantially the sole Respondent." Lord HobhouseLord MorrisLord DaveySir Richard CouchAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Forget and another v. Baxter UKPC 20"The Appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the Province of Quebec affirming a judgment of the Court of Review which reversed a judgment of the Superior Court in an action brought by the Appellants against the Respondent."Lord WatsonLord HobhouseSir Edward FrySir Henry Strong, CJCAppeal allowedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Beaudry v. Bardean UKPC 51"These are two Appeals from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench dismissing Appeals by the same parties from the original judgment of the Superior Court. The action instituted by the Appellant Jean Charles Victor Beaudry of his father Victor Beaudry to recover $3,000 being the first half-yearly payment of an annuity of $6,000 bequeathed to him by the will in question."Lord HobhouseLord MacnaghtenLord LindleySir Richard CouchSir Henry Strong, CJCAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)The Montreal Gas Company v. Vasey UKPC 52"On the the Appellants entered into a contract with the Respondent for the sale to him of ammoniacal liquor produced by them in their manufacture of gas by the terms of which the Appellants agreed to deliver to the Respondent during a period of five years from the all the ammoniacal liquor they should manufacture at their works."Lord HobhouseLord MacnaghtenLord LindleySir Richard CouchSir Henry Strong, CJCAppeal allowed in partQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)La Banque D'Hochelga v. Archibald W. Stevenson UKPC 54"In this distribution of the estate of one Lefebvre an insolvent proprietor the Appellants the Bank of Hochelaga in right of a firm of builders and suppliers of materials claims priority over the insolvent's general creditors. Their claim is put in two ways. They rely in the first place on the transfer of a builder's privilege registered against the insolvent's immovables. In the event of that claim failing they fall back on the hypothecary privilege conferred on suppliers of materials by the articles of the Civil Code now in force."Lord HobhouseLord MacnaghtenLord LindleySir Richard CouchSir Henry Strong, CJCAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)Livingstone v. Ross UKPC 2"The Appellant Livingstone, who is described in his case as an accountant of modest means, but enjoying the confidence of financial men, obtained a judgment against the Respondent Ross in the Superior Court of the city of Quebec, declaring that he was entitled as purchaser to a conveyance from Ross of the Buckingham property hereinafter described. Ross was the surviving partner of the firm of Ross Brothers, who were owners of that and other property; and Ross was winding up the business of that firm."Lord HobhouseLord RobertsonLord LindleySir Ford NorthAppeal dismissed Quebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side)The Toronto Railway Company v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto UKPC 48The controversy between the parties to this appeal has sprung out of a deed of agreement bearing date the , made between the Plaintiffs below who are now Respondents, and the Defendants below who are now Appellants, and confirmed by an Act of the Legislature of Ontario 55 Vict. cap. 99. By it the Plaintiffs grant to the Defendants certain street railways in Toronto and other property upon the terms specified. The parties have disagreed as to the meaning of those terms in many respects; but there remain now only three points on which the Defendants contend that the judgment of the Court of Appeal ought to be varied.Lord HobhouseLord DaveyLord RobertsonSir Richard CouchAppeal dismissedCourt of Appeal for OntarioBurland and others v. Earle and others UKPC 49"The Appellants and Respondents in these two Appeals which have been consolidated are alike shareholders in a joint stock company called the British American Bank Note Company. In this judgment the term 'Appellants' will mean the Appellants in the first and principal Appeal who are Defendants in the action and 'Respondents' will mean the Respondents in the same Appeal and Plaintiffs in the action."Lord HobhouseLord DaveyLord RobertsonSir Richard CouchAppeal allowed in partCourt of Appeal for OntarioThe Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba v. The Manitoba Licence Holders Association UKPC 52"In July 1900 an Act was passed by the Legislature of Manitoba for the suppression of the liquor traffic in that Province. The Act which is known by its short title of 'The Liquor Act' was to have come into operation on the . Before that date on a reference under Chapter 28 of the Revised Statutes of Manitoba the Court of King's Bench pronounced the whole Act to be unconstitutional. From this decision the present Appeal has been brought."Lord HobhouseLord MacnaghtenLord DaveyLord RobertsonLord LindleyAppeal allowed in partManitoba Court of King's BenchThe Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Roy UKPC 63"This is an Appeal by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company against a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada affirming a judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec whereby that Company were held to be liable to damages to the extent of $300 for injuries to the Plaintiff's property alleged to be caused and now admitted to have been caused by sparks escaping from one of their locomotive engines while employed in the ordinary use of its railway."Earl of Halsbury, Lord ChancellorLord MacnaghtenLord ShandLord DaveyLord RobertsonLord LindleySir Ford NorthAppeal allowedQuebec Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side)The Hull Electric Company v. The Ottawa Electric Company and the Corporation of the City of Hull UKPC 7"In March 1887 Ahearn and Soper applied to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Hull stating that they had organised a Company for the purpose of supplying the City with electric light and asking for permission to erect their poles in the streets."Lord MacnaghtenLord DaveyLord RobertsonLord LindleySir Ford NorthAppeal dismissedQuebec Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side)Archambault et vir v. Archambault et al. UKPC 39"This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of King's Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side), of the , confirming the Judgment of the Superior Court, by which the action was tried in the first instance."