List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1940–1949

This page lists all cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originating in Canada, and decided in the years 1940 to 1949.

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 FromThe Board of Trustees of the Lethbridge Irrigation District and another v. The Independent Order of Foresters and the Attorney-General of Canada; The King v. The Independent Order of Foresters and the Attorney-General of Canada UKPC 8These two appeals raise questions of the validity of three Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta, all passed on . In the first appeal the Provincial Guaranteed Securities Interest Act, Chapter 12 of the Statutes of Alberta, 1937, and the Provincially Guaranteed Securities Proceedings Act, Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Alberta, 1937, in so far as it relates to the subject matter of the proceedings under appeal, have been declared ultra vires by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Ewing dated ."Viscount Caldecote, Lord ChancellorViscount SankeyViscount MaughamLord RocheLord Porter Appeal dismissedAlberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division)The Honourable John E. Brownlee v. Vivian MacMillan UKPC 36"The respondent and her father brought an action against the appellant under the Seduction Act, 102 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1922, in which they severally claimed damages for the seduction of the respondent. found in favour of both plaintiffs, awarding the respondent 10,000 dollars damages and her father 5,000 dollars. Ives J., the trial , expressed disagreement with the verdict of the , and subsequently, notwithstanding the verdict, gave judgment dismissing the action with costs, on the construction of the statute."(Viscount Caldecote, Lord ChancellorViscount SankeyLord ThankertonLord Russell of Killowen Lord RocheAppeal dismissedSupreme Court of CanadaCanada Rice Mills Limited v. The Union Marine and general Insurance Company Limited UKPC 56"The appellants claimed in this action as assured under a floating policy of marine insurance dated , upon shipments of rice imported by the appellants to their rice mills in British Columbia, as from time to time declared under the policy."Viscount MaughamLord Russell of KillowenLord WrightLord PorterAppeal allowedBritish Columbia Court of AppealConnors Bros. Ltd. and others v. Bernard Connors UKPC 57"This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated , which (by a majority of three Judges to two) reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appellate Division. The latter had dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Chief Justice of New Brunswick. The divergence of judicial opinion is striking, since six judges in Canada were in favour of the present appellants and three — the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada — took the other view. These differences have perhaps been accentuated by the curious shape which the proceedings assumed. The main question has throughout been whether certain covenants entered into by Bernard Connors the present respondent with the appellants or any of those covenants are enforceable or whether on the other hand they are unenforceable as being in restraint of trade." Viscount Simon, Lord ChancellorViscount MaughamLord Russell of KillowenLord WrightLord PorterAppeal allowedSupreme Court of CanadaInternational Railway Company v. the Niagara Parks Commission UKPC 16"On the International Railway Company (hereinafter called 'the Appellant Company"') instituted an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario against the Niagara Parks Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission') to recover $227,538.22 representing the unpaid balance of $251,322.08 claimed to be due in respect of interest at 5 per cent per annum from to on a capital sum of $1,057,4436.00."Lord AtkinLord ThankertonLord RomerLord Justice ClausonLord Justice Luxmoore Appeal allowedOntario Court of AppealThe Board of Education for the City of Windsor v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited and others UKPC 29"This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada who by a majority affirmed a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario reversing a decision of the judge of the County Court of the County of Essex, Ontario, dismissing an appeal from the Court of Revision of the City of Windsor on a complaint by the present appellant against an assessment of the respondent company for separate school purposes. Viscount Simon, Lord ChancellorLord AtkinLord ThankertonLord Russell of KillowenLord RomerAppeal allowedSupreme Court of CanadaPort Royal Pulp and Paper Company Limited v. The Royal Bank of Canada UKPC 30"In this case the Supreme Court of Canada has reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick Appeal Division and has restored the judgment of the trial judge. The defendant to the action has appealed to His Majesty in Council.