List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1910–1919

This page lists all cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originating in Canada, and decided in the years 1910 to 1919.

From 1867 to 1949, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the highest court of appeal for Canada. Its decisions on appeals from Canadian courts had binding legal precedent on all Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court was required to follow the cases of the Judicial Committee, and the Judicial Committee could overturn decisions of the Supreme Court. The Judicial Committee decisions were the ultimate judicial authority for the Canadian courts, and had a considerable influence on the development of Canadian law, particularly constitutional law.James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.Catharine MacMillan, "Canadian Cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council", at Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Case papers, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London, last updated February 17, 2021.

Case list Case nameCitationSubject (Exact Text from Judgment)Judges (Author of decision in bold)Appeal Allowed or Dismissed?On Appeal fromSally Wertheim v. The Chicoutimi Pulp Company UKPC 9"This is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court of King's Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side), dated , affirming in part and reversing in part a Judgment of the Superior Court of that Province, dated . By the former Judgment the Respondent Company was condemned in a sum of $2,434 and costs."Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord CollinsLord ShawAppeal allowed in partQuebec Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side)The Florence Mining Company, Limited v. The Cobalt Lake Mining Company, Limited UKPC 11"This is an Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirming the Judgment of Riddell J., dismissing a claim by the Plaintiff Company, as assignees of one W.J. Green, to be entitled to certain lands and minerals situate under the waters of Cobalt Lake, in the Province of Ontario, and constituting claim J.S. 71, containing about 20 acres, which claim was alleged to have been discovered by W.J. Green and duly staked out as a mining claim in accordance with the Mines Act and regulations passed thereunder."Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord CollinsLord ShawAppeal dismissedCourt of Appeal for OntarioThe Corporation of the City of Toronto v. The Toronto Railway Company UKPC 12"This is a singular Appeal and, in their Lordships' opinion, a very idle one. In form it is an Appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissing an Appeal from an Order of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board. In substance it is an attempt to avoid or impugn an Order of His Majesty in Council and to re-open a question finally determined in a litigation between the parties to the present controversy the City of Toronto and the Toronto Railway Company."Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord CollinsLord ShawAppeal dismissedCourt of Appeal for OntarioClara B. Jones and another v. The North Vancouver Land and Improvement Company, Limited Liability UKPC 13"This is an Appeal from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated , affirming the Judgment of the Trial Judge, Mr. Justice Clements, who dismissed the action with costs. The Suit, considering the relationship of the parties (they are husband and wife), and the conduct and action of the male Plaintiff, is somewhat peculiar in its incidents."Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord CollinsLord ShawAppeal dismissedSupreme Court of British ColumbiaThe English and American Shipping Company, Limited, Owners of the Ship "Mystic," and her master and crew v. The Ship "Nanna" her cargo and freight UKPC 23"This is an Appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court of Canada which varied a Decree of McDonald, J., sitting as Local Judge in Admiralty for the Nova Scotia Admiralty District. That learned Judge had made an award of $25,000 in favour of the Owners, Master and crew of the 'Mystic for salvage services rendered to the 'Nanna,' in the course of which the 'Mystic' herself sustained serious damage. His opinion was that 'the damage to the 'Mystic' was caused by the necessities of the service, and was not attributable to the fault of the salvors.' "Present at the Hearing: Lord MacnaghtenLord AtkinsonLord CollinsLord Shaw Nautical Assessors: