List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases originating in Canada, 1930–39
For links to lists of cases decided in other decades, see List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada. For information about counsel appearing on Canadian appeals, see List of counsel appearing in Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
This page lists all cases of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council originating in Canada, and decided in the years 1930 to 1939.
1930-1939
| Case name | Citation | Subject | Presiding Justices (decision written by judge whose name is bold) | Was the Lower-Court Ruling Sustained? | Court of Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Steel Company of Canada, Limited, and others v. Thomas Ramsay and another | [1930] UKPC 103 | The Steel Company of Canada are a company incorporated by letters patent under the Companies Act of Canada. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company, Limited v. the Spanish River Pulp and paper Mills, Limited, and others | [1930] UKPC 104 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division), affirming a judgment of Mr. Justice Grant by which the appellants’ action had been dismissed. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Charles E. Campbell v. The National Trust Company, Limited, executors of E.A. Wallberg, deceased | [1930] UKPC 105 | In this case the appellant, Campbell, sued one Wallberg and a company called the Lake St. John Power and Paper Company Limited (hereinafter called the Lake Company), in the Supreme Court of Ontario, for certain relief, his claim being founded upon an alleged verbal agreement by Wallberg to pay commission. At the trial of the action before McEvoy, J., the facts as stated in the next fourteen paragraphs were established. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Hanworth Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| William Young v. The Canadian Northern Railway Company | [1930] UKPC 94 | In this case the appellant, who had been in the employ of the respondents (hereinafter called the railway company) as a machinist, sued the railway company for damages for wrongful dismissal and for other relief. His action was tried in the Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba by Dysart J. and was dismissed. An appeal from that judgment to the Court of Appeal for Manitoba was also dismissed. The appellant has now, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, appealed to His Majesty in Council. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen Chief Justice Anglin |
Sustained | Manitoba Court of Appeal |
| The Toronto Transportation Commission v. Canadian National Railways and others | [1930] UKPC 71 | These appeals are concerned with the validity of orders pronounced by the Board of railway Commissioners for Canada whereby the Toronto Transportation Commission was required to contribute to the cost of certain works directed by the Railway Board to be carried out within the City of Toronto. Three quite distinct undertakings are involved, namely, the Bloor Street Subways, the Royce Avenue Subway and the Main Street Bridge. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Keewatin Power Company, Limited v. The Lake of the Woods Millin Company, Limited | [1930] UKPC 67 | The Lake of the Woods is an enormous expanse of water 1500 square miles in extent. It extends however, over what is naturally a very flat country so that the outflow from it is not very rapid. The level of the lake naturally varies according to the conditions of rainfall which have prevailed over this large area. The natural outlets to the lake are only two in number which are denominated the western and eastern outlets. The portion of land, which divides the outlets is made into an island by the confluence of the outlets lower down, and this island is known as Tunnel Island. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Darling Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Canadian Pacific Railway Company and others v. The Toronto Transportation Commission; The Toronto Transportation Commission and others v. Canadian National Railways and others | [1930] UKPC 70 | These appeals are concerned with the validity of orders pronounced by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada whereby the Toronto Transportation Commission was required to contribute to the cost of certain works directed by Railway Board to be carried out within the City of Toronto. Three quite distinct undertakings are involved, namely, the Bloor Street Subways, the Royce Avenue Subway and the Main Street Bridge. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Bank of Montreal v. The Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company | [1930] UKPC 69 | This is an appeal from a judgment dated the 27th May, 1929, of the Supreme Court of Canada, whereby the Court by a majority reversed a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench in appeal and directed judgment for 7,565.61 dollars and costs in all Courts to be entered in favour of the present respondents against the present appellants | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Darling Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| William Robert Patton v. The Toronto General Trust Corporation and others | [1930] UKPC 61 | The issue raised by this appeal is concerned with gifts of two annuities, one immediate and the other reversionary, made to the appellant by the will of his grandfather, William Robert Patton, formerly of the City Toronto. The Courts of Ontario have held-the Appellate Division, however, being equally divided on the question-that the appellant has lost both annuities by reason of his failure to comply with what the learned Judges have considered to be a condition precedent to the enjoyment of either-namely, that at the date of the testator’s will, or, alternatively, at the date of his death, the appellant should, amongst other things, have been and should have proved himself to be of the Lutheran religion. Hence this appeal by him. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Darling Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Trustees of St. Luke’s Presbyterian Congregation of Saltsprings and others v. Alexander Cameron and others | [1930] UKPC 54 | Profiting by the experience of the Presbyterian Churches which united in Scotland in 1900 the Canadian churches which proposed to unite in 1925 adopted the safer course of invoking in advance the sanction of the legislature to their union. They have, nevertheless, not been entirely successful, as the present appeal shows, in avoiding the pitfalls which seem to lie in the path of all legislative efforts to deal with ecclesiastical affairs. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Darling Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| T.H. Hancock v. The Imperial Bank of Canada | [1930] UKPC 62 | The appellant in this case is a gentleman who signed a letter of guarantee for advances to be made to the business of a Mr. Garlock. The action is one by the Bank, in whose favour he signed the letter of guarantee, for advances made. There is no question that the advances were made, and it cannot be disputed that upon the terms of the letter of guarantee itself those terms covered the advances. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Darling Lord Russell of Killowen Chief Justice Anglin |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Harold Ferguson Fishleigh and another v. The London Western Trusts Company, Limited and others | [1930] UKPC 51 | These appeals raise for decision questions of the true construction of the will and codicils and Thomas Saunders Hobbs. The testator was a bachelor. At the date of his will he had 5 sisters living of whom four were married, viz., Mrs. Field, Mrs. Ferguson, Mrs. Fishleigh and Mrs. Puddicombe. Mrs. Ferguson was the only married sister who had no children. Mrs. Fishleigh had 2 sons alive, viz., Ernest Claude Fishleigh and William Thomas Albert Fishleigh. In these circumstances the testator executed his will which bears date the 19th March 1902. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Darling Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned Partially | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Elizabeth Bethune Campbell v. William Drummond Hogg and others | [1930] UKPC 39 | On the 18th December, Mr. James Bethune, K.C., died at Toronto, leaving his wife, Elizabeth Mary Bethune, one son, Charles, and four daughters surviving him. The children were then infancy. Two of them have since died-Charles in April 1921, one of the daughters some year earlier. The three other daughters-who are now Mrs. Lindsay, Mrs. McDougald and Mrs. Campbell-are still living. Mrs. Campbell, the youngest of the three, is the present appellant. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Attorney-General of British Columbia v. The McDonald Murphy Lumber Company, Limited | [1930] UKPC 26 | The controversy in this appeal relates to the validity of an enactment of the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia imposing a tax on timber cut within the Province. The tax was originally imposed in 1903 in substantially its present form by a Provincial statute of that year, and was subsequently re-enacted with unimportant alterations until in Section 58 of the Forest Act, being Chapter 93 of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1924, it assumed the form in which its legality is now for the first time challenged. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | British Columbia Supreme Court |
| James Richardson and Sons, Limited and another v. The Ship “Robert J Paisley” | [1930] UKPC 5 | The collision in question took place on January 18, 1927, while the s.s. “Saskatchewan,” the appellants’ vessel, was lying moored, outside ship in a tier, at a slip in a recessed area at the west side of Owen Sound. The “Paisley” is a steel s.s. of 3,762 tons gross register, 3,130 net, 360 feet length, 50 feet beam, and 28 feet depth, registered in the United States; the “Saskatchewan” is a steel s.s. of 1,860 tons gross register, 1,089 net, 266 feet long and of 38 feet beam. The Sound is a deep and narrow inlet of Lake Huron. It has natural advantages of situation and form for the heavy cargo traffic of the Great Lakes, and at the time in question was undergoing development as a harbour. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Merrivale Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada | [1931] UKPC 11 | This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference by the Governor in Council under Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act. the questions submitted to the Court were:- (a) In the Combines Investigation Act R.S.C. 1927, c. 26, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada either in whole or in part, and if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent? (b) Is Section 498 of the Criminal Code ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, and if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent? | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| S.S. Leopold L.D. v. The Hochelaga Steamship Company, Limited | [1931] UKPC 111 | The litigation between the parties ensued upon a collision between the appellant’s steel screw steamship, the “Leopold L.D.,” hereinafter called the “Leopold,” and the defendants’ steel screw steamship, the “Hochelaga,” in a narrow channel in the river St. Lawrence, below Quebec, in clear weather, at about 2.42 a.m. on November 17, 1926. The “Leopold” is a vessel of 5,140 tons gross tonnage, 400 feet in length. She was outward bound with a cargo of grain for Naples. The “Hochelaga’s gross tonnage is 4,681 and her length 375 feet, and she was bound up river, laden with coal. the casualty occurred in fine, clear weather; the wind was a south-westerly breeze, “force 5,” and the tide the last of the flood. | Present at the Hearing:
Viscount Dunedin Nautical Assessors: |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Municipal Corporation of the City of East Windsor v. The Municipal Corporation of the County of Essex | [1931] UKPC 119 | Prior to the 1st June, 1929, the Town of Ford City formed part of the County of Essex for municipal purposes. By order of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board dated the 5th March, 1929, Ford City was erected into and incorporated as a City under the name of East Windsor, and it was provided that the order should take effect on the 1st June, 1929. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned Partially | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| O. Martineau and Sons, Limited v. The City of Montreal and another | [1931] UKPC 104 | The action out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant Company in the Superior Court, District of Montreal, on the 3rd September, 1927, in order to have declared unconstitutional and inoperative, so far as they affected its own proprietary interests, certain proceedings taken by the City of Montreal for the expropriation of the appellant Company and other contiguous owners from properties of theirs required by the Corporation for the extension of Rosemount Boulevard from Chambord Street to Papineau Street, all within the area of the city. thirty-two properties were scheduled for this extension. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Lady Davis and another v. Lord Shaughnessy and others | [1931] UKPC 99 | The first of these petitions is one to quash leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council given by a Judge of the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side), and thereafter to dismiss the appeal. The petition is opposed, and the appellants, in case they are unsuccessful in their opposition, at the same time present a petition to His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Salvesen Sir John Wallis |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Dame Camille Rolland and another v. Stanislas Jean-Baptiste Rolland and others | [1931] UKPC 96 | The appellant (dame Camille Rolland who with her husband was plaintiff in the action) is one of the grandchildren and the respondents are the surviving children and certain of the other grandchildren of one J.D. Rolland and his wife, including those of them who are at present trustees and executors of his will. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Thankerton Sir John Wallis |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| The Corporation of the City of Toronto v. The King and another | [1931] UKPC 95 | On 24 October 1924, at a sitting of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario held at the city of Toronto, one Aemilius Jarvis, after trial before the Chief Justice of the Common Please and a jury, was found guilty of conspiring to defraud the Government of the Province of Ontario and was sentenced to be imprisoned for six months and to pay a fine(as reduced on appeal) of $60,000. The fine was paid to the Senior Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario on the 22nd April, 1925. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Attorney-General of Saskatchewan and another v. The Attorney-General of Canada | [1931] UKPC 91 | This appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada arises upon an order of reference pursuant to Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, made by the Governor-General in Council, dated May 3, 1930, to determine questions that had arisen between the Dominion and the Province of Saskatchewan. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Hanworth Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of Quebec v. The Attorney-General of Canada | [1931] UKPC 94 | Under one of the provisions of the statutes of Quebec the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may refer to the Court of the King’s Bench for hearing and consideration any question he deems expedient. Acting under that provision and upon the narrative that several foreign or British insurers had obtained licenses under the Quebec Insurance Act and that the Department of Insurance of the Dominion was endeavouring to force these companies to obtain a license under Section 11 and 12 of the Insurance Act of Canada, R.S.C. 1927, c.101, and to recover from persons who insure with these insurers the tax imposed by Sections 16, 20, and 21 of the Special War Revenue Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 179, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council referred to the Court of King’s Bench the following questions:- 1. Is a foreign or British insurer who holds a license under the Quebec Insurance Act to carry on business within the Province obliged to observe and subject to Sections 11, 12, 65 and 66 of the Insurance Act of Canada, or are these Sections unconstitutional as regards such insurer? 2. Are Section 16, 20, and 21 of the Special War Revenue Act within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada? Would there be any difference between the case of an insurer who had obtained or is bound to obtain under the Provincial law a license to carry on business in the Province and any other case? | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada | [1931] UKPC 93 | This appeal raises an important question as between the Dominion and the Province of Canada regarding the right to control and regulate aeronautics, including the granting of certificates to persons to act as pilots, the inspection and licensing of aircraft, and the inspection and licensing of aerodromes and air-stations. The question is whether the subject is one on which the Dominion Parliament is alone competent to legislate, or whether it is in each Province so related to provincial property and civil rights and local matters as to exclude the Dominion from any (or from more than a very limited) Jurisdiction the respect of it. | The Lord Chancellor Viscount Dunedin Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. The Superintendent of Insurance | [1931] UKPC 77 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court which, by a majority, two Judges dissenting, confirmed a judgment of the Judge in the Exchequer Court which confirmed a ruling made by the Superintendent of Insurance as to the authorised capital of the Sun Life Assurance Company, the appellants before this Board. There was, at first, a question as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to consider the judgment of the Exchequer Court Judge, but that question was given up and the only question argued before this Board has been on the merits of the case. It lies in a narrow compass and can be succinctly stated by setting out the sections of the statute on which is depends. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Hanworth Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Exchequer Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada |
| Joseph Francis Langer v. McTavish Brothers, Limited | [1931] UKPC 74 | Their Lordships have heard what has been very ably advanced by Counsel on both sides in respect of the respective appeals of these parties. The material questions in the case are two, which were concisely stated by Mr. Lawrence; was the non-disclosure by the plaintiffs of the report made to them by Barnes in the summer of 1927 fraudulent, and was the defendant induced to buy by such fradulent non-disclosure? | Lord Merrivale Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Thankerton Sir John Wallis Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Corporation of the County of Lincoln v. The Corporation of the Village of Port Dalhousie | [1931] UKPC 76 | The urban municipality of Port Dalhousie, which is a village situated within the county of Lincoln in the province if Ontario and is not separated from the county for municipal purpose, is subject to an annual general levy by the council of the county for county road purposes. | The Lord Chancellor Viscount Dunedin Lord Hanworth Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Attorney-General Ontario v. The National Trust Company, Limited, executors of the will of William Edward Wilder, deceased, and another | [1931] UKPC 87 | The point to be decided in this appeal can be stated quite shortly-Is the value of property, the subject of a gift inter vivos, to be taken for the purpose of succession duty as on the date of the gift, or as on the date of the death of the donor? | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Hanworth Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| John A. Rice v. Frits Ricdolf Christani and another | [1931] UKPC 67 | The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondents against the appellant in the Exchequer Court of Canada for a declaration that a patent grant to the appellant (No. 252546) was invalid, null and void. In the Exchequer Court the respondents failed, but the Supreme Court of Canada, on the 9th may, 1930, reversed the trial Judge and declared the patent to be invalid and void. Against the conclusion of the Supreme Court the appellant by special leave now appeals to His Majesty in Council. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Carling Export Brewing and Malting Company, Limited v. The King | [1931] UKPC 19 | The appellant, who carries on the brewery at London, Ontario, is sued by the Crown in the present action for the recovery of (a) $260,662.21 gallonage tax under the provisions of the Special War Revenue Act (1915) 5 George V. cap. 8 and amendments thereto, in respect of beer manufactured and sold by the appellant between the 1st April, 1924 and the 1st May, 1927; (b) $163,828.07 for sales tax under the said statute and amendments in respect of beer sold by the appellant between the same dates; and (c) interest and penalties in respect thereof. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen |
Overturned Partially | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The King | [1931] UKPC 18 | This appeal was brought against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which in part, dismissed the appellant’s appeal, and in part allowed the respondent’s appeal, from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada in proceedings, in which the Crown, on the information of the Attorney-General of Canada, was plaintiff and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (the appellant here) was defendant. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Steamship “Eurana” v. The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company | [1931] UKPC 2 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the President of the Exchequer Court of Canada dismissing an appeal from the Trial Judge in Admiralty for the Admiralty district of British Columbia. The action was brought by the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company, the present respondents, hereafter called the Bridge Company, against the owners of the S.S. “Euranr” for damages sustained by the Bridge Company through the ship coming into collision with their bridge over the Second Narrows in the harbour of Vancouver. | Lord Merrivale Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Exchequer Court of Canada |
| Lady Davis and another v. The Right Honourable Lord Shaughnessy and others | [1932] UKPC 80 | Lady Davis, the first appellant in this case, is the widow of Sir Mortimer Barnet Davis, the testator in the cause. He died at Golfe-les-Pins, near Cannes, on the 22nd of March 1928. He had been mainly resident in France for some years before his death, but he retained in France for some years before his death, but he retained his domicile in the Province of Quebec, where, a prominent citizen of Montreal, he had spent the greater part of his business life. Lady Davis was his second wife. There was no issue of their marriage. Mr. Mortiner Barnet Davis, the second appellant, who attained the age of 30 towards the end of 1930, is the testator’s only surviving son by a first marriage. No other issue of his survived him. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Russell of Killowen Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Florence A. Deeks Appellant v. H. G. Wells and others | [1932] UKPC 66 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division), which affirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Raney in the Supreme Court of Ontario which dismissed the plaintiff's action. The action is brought by the plaintiff, Miss Florence Deeks, for breach of copyright, but in substance the action is for breach of confidence in permitting the plaintiff's unpublished manuscript to be used without the plaintiff's consent. The action is brought against the Macmillan Company of Canada, which is the company to which the plaintiff entrusted her manuscript, it is brought against Mr. H. G. Wells, who is said to have used the manuscript of the plaintiff improperly as the foundation of his book, " The Outline of History," and it is brought against the Macmillan Company, Incorporated, of New York, Messrs. George Newnes, Limited, and Messrs. Cassell & Company, Limited, for having published the work of Mr. Wells which had been so composed. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Alice Maria Vandepitte v. The Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York | [1932] UKPC 68 | The appellant, Alice Marie Vandepitte, sustained injuries on the 5th March, 1928, owing to the motor-car, in which she was a passenger and which her husband was driving, being involved in a collision with a motor-car driven by Jean Berry. Jean Berry was the daughter of R.E. Berry and was driving the car which was her father’s property, with her permission. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| J.P. Steedman v. Frigidaire Corporation | [1932] UKPC 64 | The appellant was, in 1928, the owner in possession of the premises known as the East End Market in the City of Hamilton. He proposed to equip stalls in the market with refrigerating plant, with a view to letting them to tenants. With that object the appellant communicated through one Lord, then an assistant in his employment, with the respondents who manufacture and deal in refrigerators, as well as various accessory fittings. The respondents are a subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation, and according to the evidence their practice in disposing of their goods on the instalment system is in each case to enter into a contract for purposes of finance with another subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation, called the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as G.M.A.C. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Paul Pronek v. The Winnipeg, Selkrik and Lake Winnipeg Railway Company | [1932] UKPC 61 | The appellant in this case was plaintiff in the action. He is a farmer living at Rossdale, about 15 miles north of the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, and his claim is that he suffered damage by the respondents’ negligence and breach of duty. The respondents are a Company incorporated by Special Act of Legislature of Manitoba, Statutes of Manitoba, 1900, c. 78, as amended by Statutes of Manitoba, 1904, c. 90, and as affected by Manitoba Railway Act of 1913, c. 168. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Winnipeg Electric Company v. Jacob Geel | [1932] UKPC 53 | In this case the respondent who was plaintiff in the action was awarded by a jury the sum of $11,158.25 as damages for personal injuries sustained by him by reason of the negligence of the appellants, who were owners of the motor omnibus which caused the injuries. The judgment for these damages was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba and that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The appellants by this appeal are raising questions on the construction of certain sections of the Act in force at all material times, the Manitoba Motor Vehicle Act. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| E.R. Croft v. Sylvester Dunphy | [1932] UKPC 55 | On the 10th June, 1929, the schooner “Dorothy M. Smart” sailed for “the high seas” from the French island of St. Pierre with a cargo on board of rum and other liquors, which are dutiable under Canadian law. the vessel was registered in Nova Scotia and with her cargo was the property of the respondent, who is resident in Nova Scotia. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Corporation of the City of Montreal v. The Montreal Industrial Land Company, Limited | [1932] UKPC 56 | In this appeal the appellants, the City of Montreal, were defendants in the action and were resisting a claim by the respondents, the plaintiff company, that the Court should set aside an assessment made on them in respect of the cost of certain works of paving executed by the appellants on a road or street called Sherbrooke Street, the respondents being frontagers or bordering owners. The district, in which that street was, had before 1910 formed part of the town of Longue Pointe, but in 1910 that town was annexed by the appellants and included in the City of Montreal, as part of a larger scheme for the enlargement of the City boundaries. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The King v. The B.C. Fir and Cedar Lumber Company, Limited | [1932] UKPC 20 | This, by special leave, is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of the 13th May, 1931, whereby, in effect, judgment in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, pronounced at the trial by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and affirmed on the 7th October, 1930, by the Court of Appeal of the same Province, was discharged. The appellant now seeks to have these two earlier judgment restored. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated and others v. the City of Outremont | [1932] UKPC 14 | The question under consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants or either of them are or is liable to the respondent City of Ontremont for municipal and school taxes in respect of gas mains lying under the public streets of the city. The mains are the property of the second appellant. The gas undertaking of the second appellant is operated by the first appellant. The soil of the streets under which mains lie is not owned by the appellants or either of them. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| John Farquhar Lymburn and another v. Albert Henry Mayland and others | [1932] UKPC 5 | This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Alberta in proceedings taken by the plaintiffs to challenge powers sought to be exercised by the Attorney-General of Alberta under the provisions of the Security Frauds Prevention Act, 1930 (Alberta), Statutes of Alberta 20 G.V. c.s. Under the terms of Section 9 of that Act the Attorney-General or any delegate appointed by him has power to examine any person or company at any time in order to ascertain whether any fraudulent act as defined by the statute or any offence against the Act or the regulations has been, is being, or is about to be, committed. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Attorney-General of Quebec v. The Attorney-General of Canada and others | [1932] UKPC 7 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, answering questions referred to it by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, for hearing and consideration, pursuant to the authority of Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act (Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, Chapter 35), touching the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to regulate and control radio communication. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Russell of Killowen Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of Quebec v. The Attorney-General of Canada | [1932] UKPC 6 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced on the 26th September, 1929, allowing an appeal from a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side) for the Province of Quebec, dated the 28th June, 1927. On the 31st day of December, 1923, an order of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec was made, declaring Messrs. Silver Brothers, Limited, bankrupt. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy, Limited | [1932] UKPC 70 | This appeal arises out of an action by the appellants for a mandamus commanding the respondents, as a distributor as defined by Section 2 of the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act, being Chapter 20 of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1929, as amended by the Statutes, 1930, Chapter 13, and 1931, Chapter 14 (hereinafter called “Act of 1929”), to make forthwith to the appellants, an incorporated Committee appointed under the Act of 1929, returns of all milk or manufactured products purchased or received by the respondents from dairy farmers as defined by the Act and for damages. | Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Regent Taxi and Transport Company, Limited v. La Congregation des Petits Freres de Maria dit Freres Maristes | [1932] UKPC 4 | This appeal, brought by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, involves two important questions arising under the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec, upon one of which an acute division of judicial opinion was disclosed in the Supreme Court. The respondents are a religious community, incorporated by a Quebec statute, and bound by rules to maintain in sickness and in health its members who, by their vows, own no property, everything acquired by them vesting in the community. One of the members was Brother Henri-Gabriel who was mainly engaged in the writing of textbooks and the teaching of boys. | Viscount Dunedin Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Clifford B. Reilly v. The King | [1933] UKPC 101 | This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, which affirmed a decision of Maclean J. in the Exchequer Court of Canada, dismissing a petition of right in which the present appellant, Mr. Reilly, was the suppliant. The suppliant’s case was that, in pursuance of the Pensions Act, he had on August 16, 1928, been appointed a member of the Federal Appeal Board for a term of five years; that, in breach of contract, he had been dismissed in October, 1930, and he claimed damages. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Mount Royal Assurance Company and others v. The Cameron Lumber Company, Limited | [1933] UKPC 90 | This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirming, by a majority, a judgment of the Supreme Court of the same Province whereby, following the verdict of a special jury, the sum of $24,679.07 was adjudged to the plaintiffs. The action in which these judgment were pronounced was one resulting from the consolidation into one action against seven defendant insurance companies of seven suits which had been brought by the plaintiffs against each defendant company separately. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company v. The Kapoor Lumber Company, Limited | [1933] UKPC 63 | In this case an action was brought by the Kapoor Lumber Company, Limited (hereinafter called the Lumber Company), against the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company (hereinafter called the railway Company), in which the Lumber Company claimed to recover a sum of $234,285 as the damage sustained by them to their property through the negligence of the Railway Company in (1) causing or permitting a fire to start upon their right of way at or near the lumber mill owned and operated by the Lumber Company and (2) allowing the fire to get out of control and escape from their right of way and to destroy or damage the property of the Lumber Company. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Attorney-General of British Columbia v. The Kingcome Navigation Company, Limited | [1933] UKPC 66 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dated the 7th March 1933, which affirmed, with one dissentient, the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated the 11th January 1933, by which the appellant’s action for recovery of tax from the respondent was dismissed. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir George Lowndes |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Provincial Treasurer of Alberta and another v. Clara E. Kerr and another | [1933] UKPC 57 | The late Isaac Kendall Kerr died on the 3rd December, 1929, domiciled and resident in the Province of Alberta. He left a large estate, and the respondents in the original appeal, both of whom are resident in the city of Calgary, obtained letters probate as executrix and executor of his will. Thereafter duties amounting to $54,74.21 were assessed under the Alberta Succession Duties Act by the Provincial Treasurer in respect of the property of the deceased, and the respondents, along with a surety, entered into the bond afterwards referred to in order to secure payment of these duties. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned Partially | Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Minister of National Revenue v. Mrs. Catherine Spooner | [1933] UKPC 58 | The respondent, Mrs. Spooner, in the year 1927 received a sum of $9,570.41 in circumstances set out in an agreed statement of facts. The question is whether this sum was “income” of the respondent within the meaning of the income War Tax Act (revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, ch. 97). | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir George Lowndes |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Merrill Ring Wilson, Limited, and others v. The Workmen’s Compensation Board | [1933] UKPC 62 | This case comes before their Lordships on appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court of that Province, which dismissed an action brought by the appellants against The Workmen’s Compensation Board. this Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is a body constituted for the administration of Part I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (R.S. B.C. 1924, chap. 278). | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario v. The Coniagas Reduction Company, Limited | [1933] UKPC 44 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated the 20th April, 1932, which dismissed an appeal from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Raney, of the Supreme Court of Ontario, dated the 22nd July, 1931. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Dominion Building Corporation, Limited, and another v. The King | [1933] UKPC 42 | In these appeals the validity of four orders made by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is challenged. Appeals nos. 1,3 and 5 arise out of an order of the Railway Board, No. 45,410 of the 16th September, 1930, relating to a subway in d’Argenson Street, Montreal; here the appellants are respectively (a) Bell Telephone Company of Canada; (b) the Montreal Light, Heat and power Consolidated; and (c) the Montreal Tramways Company and the Montreal Tramways Commission; the respondents are in each case the Canadian National Railways. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The City of Montreal v. The Canadian National Railways | [1933] UKPC 46 | In these appeals the validity of four orders made by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is challenged. Appeals nos. 1,3 and 5 arise out of an order of the Railway Board, No. 45,410 of the 16th September, 1930, relating to a subway in d’Argenson Street, Montreal; here the appellants are respectively (a) Bell Telephone Company of Canada; (b) the Montreal Light, Heat and power Consolidated; and (c) the Montreal Tramways Company and the Montreal Tramways Commission; the respondents are in each case the Canadian National Railways. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Supreme Court of Canada | |
| The Bell Telephone Company and others v. The Canadian National Railway and others | [1933] UKPC 45 | In these appeals the validity of four orders made by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is challenged. Appeals Nos. 1, 3 and 5 arise out of an order of the Railway Board, No. 45,410 of the 16th September, 1930, relating to a subway in d’Argenson Street, Montreal; here the appellants are respectively (a) the Bell telephone Company of Canada; (b) the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated; and (c) the Montreal Tramways Company and the Montreal tramways Commission; the respondents are in each case the Canadian National Railways. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Ottawa Electric Railway Company v. The Canadian National Railways | [1933] UKPC 33 | This is an appeal by special leave by the Ottawa Electric Railway Company from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated the 18th May, 1931, which dismissed an appeal from an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada dated the 5th of March, 1928, and numbered 40417. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Merrivale Lord Alness Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| John B. Holden v. The Minister of National Revenue | [1933] UKPC 36 | The appellant, who is, and at all material times has been resident in Canada is the sole surviving executor and trustee of the will of Duncan McMartin, who died on the 2nd May, 1914 domiciled in the Province of Quebec. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned Partially | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Consolidated Distilleries, Limited, and another v. the King | [1933] UKPC 34 | These are three appeals (consolidated into one) from the three judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada affirming the judgments of the Exchequer Court of Canada delivered in three actions which has been brought by the Crown for the purpose of recovered moneys alleged to be due under certain bonds executed by the appellants in favour of the Crown in the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. The appellants Hume and King are parties to all or some of the bonds, but where subsequently used in this judgment the word “appellants” refer to Consolidated Distilleries, Limited, only. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| William Francis O’Connor v. Gordon Waldron | [1934] UKPC 69 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada affirming a judgment of the First Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) affirming a judgment of Mr. Justice Orde. The original judgment was given on a motion by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for slander on the ground that it was frivolous and vexatious. The question is whether the defendant is uttering the words was protected by the absolute privilege which is given to words spoken by a judge. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Vancouver General Hospital v. Annabelle McDaniel and another | [1934] UKPC 60 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, dated the 6th June, 1933, affirming, by a majority, the judgment of Fisher J. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated the 13th January, 1933. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Paterson Steamships, Limited v. Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers, Limited | [1934] UKPC 56 | The appellants were sued as the owners of the steamship “Sarniadoc,” which on the 29th November, 1929, stranded at Main Duck Island at the eastern end of Lake Ontario and became practically a total loss: the respondents sued as owners of a parcel of wheat and barley, being part cargo of the “Sarniadoc” when she stranded, and in the action claimed damages in respect of the loss of the grain consequent on the stranding. The respondents have succeeded before the trial Judge and before the Court of king’s Bench (in Appal) for the Province of Quebec, Bond J., dissenting. The appellants now appeal. no question of amount need here to considered. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Laura McEwan v. Arthur Cosens and others | [1934] UKPC 57 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated the 8th June, 1933, reversing a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dated the 10th December, 1932. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Harry Oakes v. Charles S. Frankland | [1934] UKPC 45 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Court of Appeal, confirming, with a variation, the judgment of the trial Judge, Mr. Justice Kelly, in favour of the plaintiff. | Lord Atkin Lord Wright Lord Tomlin Sir Lancelot Sanderson Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| The Canadian Electrical Association and other v. The Canadian National Railways and others | [1934] UKPC 44 | This is an appeal by special leave from a majority judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the legality of a regulation of the Board of railway Commissioners of Canada propounded by a majority vote of that Board. The difficulty of the question raised may be properly gauged, in this instance, by the divergence of administrative and judicial opinion already manifested with reference to it. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Alness |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Jean MacKenzie v. The Royal Bank of Canada | [1934] UKPC 31 | This is an from a judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division), reversing a judgment for Mrs. MacKenzie the plaintiff, the present appellant. The action was brought to recover certain shares in Borden Company, Inc., brought to recover certain share in Borden Company, Inc., which by an amalgamation represented 187 shares in Ottawa dairy Co., Ltd. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Alness |
Overturned | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Attorney-General of Ontario v. Gordon Perry | [1934] UKPC 32 | The principal question for decision on this appeal is whether property to be held upon trusts for the benefit of his wife and the issue of their marriage, transferred by a husband in pursuance of a covenant contained in marriage articles is, within the meaning of the Succession Duty Act of Ontario a “gift” so as to be chargeable with succession duty on the death of the husband. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Wright Lord Alness Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| The United Gas and Fuel Company of Hamilton, Limited and another v. The Dominion natural Gas Company, Limited | [1934] UKPC 22 | The main question which their Lordships have to consider in this appeal concerns the effect of the transfer of certain areas in the Province of Ontario from one local government jurisdiction to another upon the rights and powers of a public utility company operating in the areas transferred. Questions relating to the scope and validity of the company’s rights and power are also raised. | The Lord Chancellor Lord Blanesburgh Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| The Lightning Fastner Company, Limited v. The Colonial Fastener Company, Limited, and others | [1934] UKPC 29 | This appeal relates to a Canadian Patent Nod. 210,202 and dated the 5th of April, 1921, embodying the invention of one Sundback and owned at all material times by the appellants. The action out of which the appeal arises was begun by the appellants against the respondents in the Exchequer Court of Canada to restrain an alleged infringement of the patent. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Tomlin Lord Wright Lord Alness Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| G.A.P. Brickenden v. The London Loan and Savings Company of Canada and others | [1934] UKPC 25 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated the 29th March, 1933, which reversed a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated the 1st March 1932, and restored the judgment of the Trial Judge (Raney, J.), dated the 11th October 1930. | Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Alness |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| H.A. Morine and others v. London Loan Assets, Limited, and others | [1934] UKPC 20 | In this case one Morine appeals from a judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division), which dismissed his appeal from a judgment of Wright, J. The relevant facts out of which the litigation originated may be stated briefly. | Lord Merrivale Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Alness |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Kenneth de Sola Joseph and another v. Esther Phillips | [1934] UKPC 17 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, dated the 3rd October, 1932, allowing an appeal from the judgment of Orde J.A., dated the 18th September, 1931. The appeal raises a short question on the construction of the will of the testator, Abe Lyons. The will was dated the 16th June, 1928. The testator died on the 26th July, 1930, after an illness which began early in June. On the 8th June, 1930, he was moved to hospital, where he remained until his death. During that time he was mentally incapable of looking after his affairs. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Warrington of Clyffe Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Alness |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| The Vancouver Malt and Sake Brewing Company, Limited v. The Vancouver Breweries, Limited | [1934] UKPC 9 | The appellants challenge in these proceedings the validity of an agreement in writing which they made with the respondents on the 5th December, 1927. Having been advised that the agreement was not binding upon them, they intimated to the respondents that they proposed to act in disregard of it, whereupon the respondents brought the present action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia claiming a declaration that the agreement was valid and subsisting and enforceable by them against the appellants and an injunction restraining the appellants from acting in contravention of its terms. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Western Power Company of Canada, Limited v. The Corporation of the District of Matsqui | [1934] UKPC 5 | This appeal is from a portion of a judgment given against the appellant, who was defendant in the Court below, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and affirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Isaac William Cannon Solloway v. W.T. Johnson | [1934] UKPC 1 | In the action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia out of which this appeal arises, the defendants were Solloway Mills & Company, Limited a large brokerage Dominion company, having its head office in Toronto, with many branches throughout Canada and beyond; Isaac William Cannon Solloway and Harvey and Harvey Mills, the first the president and the other a director of that company; and Solloway & Mills (B.C.), Limited, as associated Provincial concern. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned Partially | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Cora Lillian McPerson v. Oran Leo McPherson | [1935] UKPC 88 | At the trial of a divorce action, which took place during the luncheon interval in the Judges' law library in the Court House at Edmonton, Alberta-not one of the regular Courts in the Court House-neither the judge nor counsel were robed. The judge was attended by the assistant-clerk of the Court and by an official shorthand writer, and before taking his seat he announced that he was sitting in an open court. The only other persons present throughout the proceedings were the petitioner and his two witnesses, the action being undefended. | Lord Alness Lord Maugham Lord Roche |
Sustained | Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Montreal Trust Company v. The British Columbia Land and Investment Agency, Limited | [1935] UKPC 76 | In the months of January and February, 1926, one T.R. Nickson, who resided in the City of Vancouver, found himself in a position of considerable difficulty. He controlled and managed two companies, the Prudential Holdings, Limited and Nickson Construction Company, Limited, in which he was practically the sole shareholder, and he was being pressed by the Royal Bank of Canada to discharge the sum of $15,500 | Lord Alness Lord Maugham Lord Roche |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The City of Winnipeg and others v. Winnipeg Electric Company | [1935] UKPC 69 | In this appeal presented by the adjoining Cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface in the Province of Manitoba, their Lordships have been engaged in investigating the validity or otherwise of an order made on the 31st July, 1931, by the Municipal and Public Utility Board of Province. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Macmillan Lord Wright |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Northwestern Utilities, Limited v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Limited, and others | [1935] UKPC 63 | The action out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the respondents as respectively owners of property in the City of Edmonton in Alberta and their insurers; they claimed that the property has been destroyed or damaged by a fire due to an escape of gas from the gas main of the appellants for which the appellants are liable. the damages claimed amounted to $320,278.64 but all questions of amount were reserved. On the question of liability before Ford J. the appellants succeeded, but his decision was reversed by a judgment of the Supreme court of Alberta (Appellate division) by a majority (Lunney and Mitchell JJ.A. dissenting) who ordered judgment to be entered for damages to be assessed. From that judgment, the present appeal is brought. | The Lord Chancellor (Viscount Hailsham) Lord Blanesburgh Lord Wright |
Sustained | Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The Steamer Phillip T. Dodge v. Dominion Bridge Company, Limited and others | [1935] UKPC 55 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the President of the Exchequer Court of Canada dismissing an appeal from the Local Judge in Admiralty for Quebec in favour of the plaintiffs, the present respondents. The respondents are the builders and owners of a bridge across the York River at Gaspe in the Province of Quebec. The claim in the action is based upon the allegation that the defendant vessel when passing under the bridge collided with it and carried away one of the bascules owing to the negligent navigation of those on board. | Present at the Hearing:
Lord Atkin Nautical Assessors: Captain H.C. Birnie, D.S.O., R.D. |
Sustained | Exchequer Court of Canada |
| Raoul Tremblay v. Duke-Price Power Company, Limited | [1935] UKPC 46 | Their Lordships do not require to hear any argument from the respondents because they have come to the conclusion that on the point of which alone special leave to appeal was given in this case the appellant fails. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Quebec Superior Court |
| Madame Thomas Potvin and another v. The Gatineau Electric Light Company (Limited) | [1935] UKPC 47 | Their Lordships do not require to hear Counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal in forma pauperis from a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench of Quebec confirming the judgment of the trial Judge, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ action | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| The Bell Telephone Company of Canada v. La Ville St. Laurent | [1935] UKPC 52 | The present action was brought by the respondent on the 29th October, 1929, for the recovery of municipal and school taxes imposed upon the immoveable of the appellant situated within the municipality of the respondent for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928. the taxes imposed for the years 1926 and 1927 were levied upon an assessed value of $25,000 placed upon “poteaux, fills, cables et thout le systeme”: for the year 1928 the assessed value was increased to $45,000. It is agreed that the increase was due to the inclusion of the value placed upon a switchboard, with its associated plant, which the appellant has brought from another area, and had placed in premises of which the appellant was not the owner, but only a tenant under a lease, and which has been put into service on the 7th April, 1928. | Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| The Canadian National Railway Company v. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company | [1935] UKPC 38 | The issue in this appeal is expressed in the question of law, upon which the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada gave the present respondent leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from an order of the Board dated the 12th July 1933, and which is as follows:-”Whether upon the agreement made between the Canadian National railway Company and the Canadian Pacific railway Company on the 29th day of January 1929 and the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth, grain shipped from stations on the Northern Alberta Railways to Prince Rupert or to Victoria for export, and exported from either of those ports to say the United Kingdom, is to be excluded from the comparison of freight traffic for the purpose of the equal division to be made under Article 7 of the agreement as not being ‘outbound freight traffic destined to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties’ as the expressions is used in said Article?” | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| British Coal Corporation v. the King | [1935] UKPC 33 | This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of king’s Bench (Appeal Side) of the Province of Quebec, delivered on the 5th October, 1934. The petitioners had been convicted on the 12th December, 1933, under section 498 of the Canadian Criminal Code and under sections 2 and 32 of the Combines investigation Act, 1923, before the Court of King’s bench (Crown Side) and had been subjected to fines totaling $30,000, but the more serious effect to the petitioners of the conviction was that their business operations in the import of British anthracite coal were held to be illegal. The conviction was upheld by the judgment of the Appeal Court. | The Lord Chancellor (Viscount Sankey) Lord Atkin Lord Tomlin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| The Standard Fuel Company of Toronto, Limited v. The Toronto Terminals Railway Company | [1935] UKPC 26 | The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Railway Company) was empowered to expropriate lands for the construction of a railway viaduct on land reclaimed from Toronto Harbour on Lake Ontario. On the 5th November, 1926, a notice of expropriation was given by the railway Company to one Boulton as owner, and the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Fuel Company) as tenant of certain lands near the foot of Church Street, Toronto; the Railway Company offering to pay $160,00.00 to the owner and $40,000.00 to the tenant in full compensation for the lands and all damage caused by the exercise of the power of expropriation. these offers were not accepted, and an arbitration accordingly took place under the provisions of the railway Act, 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. V. cap. 68). | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Andrew Ferguson v. Helen A. Wallbridge and others | [1935] UKPC 7 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissing the appellant’s appeal from the judgment of the trial Judge, Chief Justice Morrison of the Supreme Court. Both Courts therefore are, in the result, in agreement. But the issue between the parties has been the occasion for great divergence n the reasons adduced by the learned Judges for the conclusions reached by them. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| The Attorney-General of Manitoba and others v. The Attorney-General of Canada | [1935] UKPC 1 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada given under a reference from the Governor-General-in-Council. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Wright Lord Alness Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| James Forbes v. The Attorney-General of Manitoba | [1936] UKPC 88 | The Attorney-General of the Province of Manitoba, suing on behalf of His Majesty in right of the Province, seeks in these proceedings to obtain judgment against the appellant for a sum of $20.80, being tax alleged to be due by him under the Special Income Tax Act, 1933, of the Province of Manitoba. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Maugham |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| John A. Allen and others v. F. O’Hearn and Company | [1936] UKPC 76 | This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Ontario, who reversed a decision of Kingstone J. in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the action with costs. the original plaintiffs were L.S. Clarke and J.A. Allen his trustee in bankruptcy. during the proceedings Mr. Clarke died and his executors were added as parties. The defendants are brokers in Toronto and have a seat on the Standard Stock and Mining Exchange in Toronto and upon other exchanges. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Alness Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Vernon Lloyd-Owen v. Alfred E. Bull and others | [1936] UKPC 63 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dated the 17th July, 1935, affirming an order of the Supreme Court dated the 28th March, 1935. The petition on which the order of the Supreme Court was made was presented on the 13th March, 1935, by the appellant and the respondent John S. Salter as liquidator in the voluntary liquidation of a British Columbian company, Pioneer Gold Mines, Limited-to be referred to throughout as “the Company”. By the petition the liquidator submitted himself to the Court but took no active steps in the case. It was the appellant, a minority contributory of the Company, was the active party. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Thankerton Lord Roche |
Overturned | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Hugh Crawford Magee v. Charles W. Magee and others | [1936] UKPC 57 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which declared the true intent and meaning of the will of one Hugh Magee, who died on the 9th March, 1909. The testator devised certain lands and bequeathed all his personal property to his wife. No question arises in regard thereto. It is only in relation to his residuary real estate that controversy has arisen. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. Sir Michael Myers, C.J.N.Z. |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Freeman T. Cross v. Gatineau Power Company | [1936] UKPC 62 | This is an appeal from two judgments of the Court of King’s Bench for the Province of Quebec dated 28 December 1934, reducing the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant in an action which was heard by Mr. Justice de Lorimier in the Superior Court and in which he pronounced judgment on 28 June 1933. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Maugham Lord Roche |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) |
| Enid Browne v. Florence Yoda Moody and others | [1936] UKPC 58 | In this appeal their Lordships have to determine the interpretation and effect of certain provisions in the will of the late Mrs. Kartherine Hamilton Browne of Toronto. The testatrix died on 17 March 1930. She was survived by a son, William George Hamilton Browne, and three daughters, Mrs. Florence Moody, Mrs. Constance Kinnear and Mrs. Helen Smith; she was also survived by a granddaughter, Enid Browne, the daughter of her son, William George Hamilton Browne. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Alness Sir Michael Myers, C.J.N.Z. |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| George Pardew Lovibond v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and others | [1936] UKPC 35 | These are two appeals by special leave. By his first appeal George Pardew Lovibond seeks to reverse an order (dated the 28th June, 1933) of the Court of Appeal of Ontario which dismissed his appeal from the judgment of Kerwin J. pronounced on the 24th February, 1933, in an action in which he was the plaintiff. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Maugham Sir George Rankin |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Imperial Bank of Canada v. Mary Victoria | [1936] UKPC 30 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 21 December 1934, reversing a judgment of the Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) dated 24 March 1934, which allowed an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Boyle the trial Judge. It may be mentioned here the there was a jury at the trial until the close of the evidence; but counsel for both parties agreed that the jury should be dispensed with and the decision of the case was left to the trial Judge who gave judgment in favour of the respondent for the full amount of her claim. : for $13,356 with costs. | The Lord Chancellor (Viscount Hailsham) Lord Thankerton Lord Maugham Sir George Lowndes Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Knight Sugar Company, Limited v. The Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company | [1937] UKPC 109 | In this appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division), which affirmed the dismissal by Ford J. of the appellants’ action, the relevant facts are not in dispute. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright |
Sustained | Alberta Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| Isaac W.C. Solloway and another v. J.P. McLaughlin | [1937] UKPC 88 | These are an appeal and a cross appeal from decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in ac action brought in the High Court of Ontario by the present respondent against two companies named Solloway Mills and Co., Ltd., one registered in Ontario and the other in the Dominion and against the present appellants Mr. Isaac Solloway and Mr. Harvey Mills, two of the directors of the companies. | Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Maugham |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The King v. Southern Canada Power Company, Limited | [1937] UKPC 83 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated the 15th January, 1936, reducing the amount of damages awarded by a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, rendered on the 29th December, 1933, in favour of the appellant, from $80,923.20, with interest thereon from the date of the judgment, to $31,418.03 There is a cross-appeal, also by special leave, by which the respondents in the original appeal seek to have the judgment of the Supreme Court reversed and the action dismissed. It will be convenient to describe the original appellant as “the Crown” and the original respondents as “the Power Company”. | Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Alness Lord Maugham |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| A. Vivian Mansell v. the Star Printing and Publishing Company of Toronto Limited | [1937] UKPC 82 | The plaintiff in these proceedings (now the appellant) is a publisher of fine art colour prints who resides in England and does business through the world. He complains that between the months of March and July, 1932, the respondents in infringement of his rights published in Toronto, in the illustrated section of a newspaper owned by them and known as the “Star Weekly”, a number of pictures of which he claims to be entitled to the copyright. | Lord Atkin Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Alness Lord Maugham |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| E.B.M. Company, Limited v. The Dominion Bank | [1937] UKPC 68 | In this case E.B.M. Company, Limited (a company incorporated by Dominion Letters Patent dated the 8th May, 1922, and granted under the Dominion Companies Act) appeals from a judgment and order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which affirming a judgment or order of Kelly J. in favour of the respondents, the Dominion Bank. The relevant facts which led up to the litigation in which this appeal arises must first be stated; the appellant Company being referred to as the old Company, and the respondent Bank being referred to as the Bank. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Robin Hood Mills Limited v. Paterson Steamships Limited | [1937] UKPC 54 | This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada dated 17 July 1935, dismissing their appeal from a judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Demers sitting as the Local Judge in Admiralty for the District of Quebec dated 15 December 1934, whereby the respondents obtained a decree for limitation of liability under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Roche |
Sustained | Exchequer Court of Canada |
| International Railway Company v. The Niagara Parks Commission | [1937] UKPC 50 | The main question to be determined in this appeal related to the basis on which the appellants are entitled to be compensated on which the appellants are entitled to be compensated on the transfer to the respondents of an electric railway constructed by the appellants on the Canadian bank of the Niagara River. There are also subsidiary questions (1) as to whether certain items of property should be included in computing the compensation, (2) as to the allowance of interest, and (3) as to costs. | Viscount Sankey Lord Blanesburgh Lord Macmillan |
Overturned Partially | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Wake-Walker v. SS. Colin W. Ltd. | [1937] UKPC 49, [1937] 2 D.L.R. 753 (P.C.). | In the early morning of the 13th of August, 1934, H.M.S. “Dragon” with a pilot on board was proceeding up the St. Lawrence inbound from Quebec. The “Dragon” is a twin screw cruiser, 470 feet long, 41 feet in beam, and was drawing about 16 ½ feet. Her shaft horse-power is about 40,000 and her cruising speed is 12 knots (105 to 107 revolutions) and her full speed is 27 knots. She intended to berth at the cross-wall at the inner end of the Market Basin, Montreal, which is situated on the north side of the river, and she had received a letter from the Harbour authorities stating that the berth would be ready for her at 9 o’clock, with a tug in attendance to berth her, if required. | Present at the Hearing:
Viscount Sankey Nautical Assessors: Captain Mackay |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| William I. Bishop, Limited, and Others v. The James Mclaren Company, Limited | [1937] UKPC 43 | This is an appeal from two judgment of the Court of King’s Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side) dated 27 December 1935, reducing by the first judgment the amount awarded to the appellants by the Superior Court for the District of Montcalm from $293,584.84 with interest on $87,444.68 from the date of the institution of the action (4 December 1930) and with interest on the balance ($206,066.16) from the date of the judgment of the Superior Court (10 June 1934) to $1,429.60 with interest therein from the date of the institution of the action. By the second judgment the Court of King’s Bench dismissed the cross-appeal of the present appellants which was brought to secure a decree for interest on the institution of the action of from the date of the judgment of the Superior Court. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Maugham Lord Roche |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| St. Francis Hydro Electric Company, Limited, and others | [1937] UKPC 37 | This is an appeal from a majority judgment of the Court of King’s Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side), dated the 29th May, 1936, confirming a judgment of the Superior Court for the District of Quebec, dated the 25th March, 1935. The appellants succeeded in maintaining their titled to certain riparian lands on the St. Francis River at a point called Spicer Rapids, some 25 miles up the river from Lake St. Peter through which the St. Lawrence flows. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Maugham Lord Roche Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Georgina Laverdure v. Hon. Pamphile R. Du Tremblay and others | [1937] UKPC 35 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of king’s Bench (Appeal Side), Province of Quebec reversing by a majority of three Judges, Bond, Galipeault and St. Jacques JJ. with two dissentients, Dorion and St. Germain JJ. a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. By that judgment Mr. Justice Duclos had maintained an action in which the appellant, Georgiana Lavendure, the widow, testamentary executrix, and universal legatee of Edouard Berthiaume who died on the 24th December, 1933, claimed from the respondents, trustees under a deed of gift executed by the late Hon. Treffle Berthiaume (to be called for convenience “the donor”), and also from the respondent Du Tremblay, as sole trustee under the will of the donor, certain dividends declared by the respondents, La Presse Publishing Company, Limited (to be called “the Company”) on its preferred and common stocks on the 27th December, that is to say three days after the death of Edouard Berthiaume, payable on the 2nd January following. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Maugham Lord Roche Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Maritime Electric Company Limited v. General Dairies, Limited | [1937] UKPC 16 | This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated the 28th June, 1935, reversing a judgment of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. That Court had affirmed a judgment in the King’s Bench Division whereby the appellants had recovered against the respondents the sum of $1,931.2 and costs. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Alness Lord Maugham |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of Ontario v. The Attorney General of Canada and others | [1937] UKPC 11 | This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5 November 1935, asking whether The Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act was ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The unanimous answer of the Supreme Court which was expressed to be directed only to those sections of the Act upon which they had the benefit of argument was that section 14, 18 and 19 were ultra vires, that sections 16 and 17 were not ultra vires: and that sections 20, 21 and 22 so far as they were appicable to such of the enactments or to offences created by such of the enactments enumerated in section 2 (h) as might be intra vires were not ultra vires. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Overturned Partially | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of Canada v. The Attorney-General of Ontario and others | [1937] UKPC 7 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, delivered on 17 June 1936, in the matter of a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5 November 1935, asking whether the Employment and Social Insurance Act, 1935, was ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The majority of the Supreme Court, Rinfret, Cannon, Crocket and Kerwin JJ. answered the question in the affirmative, the Chief Justice and Davis J. dissenting. The Act in its preamble recited Article 23 of the treaty of Peace, by which in the Covenant of the League of Nations the members of the League agreed that they would endeavour to maintain fair and humane conditions of labour (omitting, however, in the recital that this agreement was subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed), and Article 427 of the said treaty, by which it was declared that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage earners, was of supreme international importance. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of Canada v. The Attorney-General of Ontario and others | [1937] UKPC 6 | This is one of a series of cases brought before this Board on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada on references by the Governor-General in Council to determine the validity of certain statutes of Canada passed in 1934 and 1935. Their Lordships will deal with all the appeals in due course, but they propose to begin with that involving The Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, The Minimum Wages Act and The Limitation of Hours of Work Act, both because of the exceptional importance of the issues involved, and because it affords them an opportunity of stating their opinion upon some matters which also arise in the other cases. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of British Columbia v. the Attorney-General of Canada and others | [1937] UKPC 9 | This is an appeal from the Supreme Court on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5 November 1935, raising the question whether the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, as amended by the Natural Products Marketing Act Amendment Act, 1935, is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court unanimously answered the question in the affirmative. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of British Columbia v. The Attorney-General of Canada and others | [1937] UKPC 8 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered on 17 June 1936, on a reference by the Governor-General in Council dated 5 November 1935, raising the question whether section 498A of the Criminal Code is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court unanimously held that subsections (b) and (c) were not ultra vires, and by a majority, the Chief Justice, Rinfret, Davis and Kerwin JJ., Cannon and Crocket JJ. dissenting, held that subsection (a) also was not ultra vires. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Attorney-General of British Columbia v. The Attorney-General of Canada and others | [1937] UKPC 10 | This appeal by special leave challenges the constitutional validity of the Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, which was enacted by the Dominion Parliament as chapter 53 of the Statutes of Canada, 1934. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Judges v. The Attorney General | [1937] UKPC 31 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dated the 6th June, 1936, answering in the affirmative certain questions referred to the Court by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for hearing and consideration pursuant to the Constitutional Questions Act, Chapter 60 of the Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1930. | Lord Blanesburgh Lord Atkin Lord Maugham Lord Roche Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Saskatchewan Court of Appeal |
| Leslie Colbatch Clark v. The Yukon Consolidate Corporation Limited | [1938] UKPC 74 | Their Lordships do not require to hear Counsel for the respondents. In this appeal Counsel for the appellants asks their Lordships to re-open a concurrent finding of fact by both Courts below that the transaction between Worsdale and Treadgold in the present case was a colourable transaction and not a real transaction. | Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Michael Burns v. Mabel Burns | [1938] UKPC 59 | The appellant, who is plaintiff in the action as administrator of the estate of Dominic burns, deceased, and in his own right, appeals from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dated the 11th January, 1938, affirming the judgment of Robertson J., dated the 26th May, 1937, which dismissed the appellant’s action against the respondent as administratrix of the estate of James Francis Burns, deceased, and in her own right, in which the appellant sought revocation of the grant, whereby letters of administration of the estate of James Francis burns issued out of the District Court of the District of Southern Alberta were researled in the Province of British Columbia on the 22nd September, 1936, and sought a grant of administration of the 22nd September, 1936, and sought a grant of administration of the estate of James Francis Burns to the appellant, an uncle of the deceased, as his next-of-kin. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Roche Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Northern Ontario Power Company Limited v. La Roche Mines Limited and another | [1938] UKPC 57 | These consolidated appeals, from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, relate to the liability, if any, of La Roche Mines, Ltd., under a contract with Northern Ontario Power Co., Ltd., for the supply of electric power. the agreement consists of a printed form containing general and special conditions with blanks filled in to deal with the particular customer, with the result, not uncommon in such cases, that the document presents problems of construction which are not easy of solution. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Mary Elizabeth Wood and others v. Gerald Allan Wood | [1938] UKPC 56 | Mary G. Wood made her will, dated the 29th November, 1923. By it she bequeathed pecuniary legacies amount in all $9,000; she bequeathed three life annuities of $400 each; she made bequests of common capital stock of the Bank of Nova Scotia amounting in all to 125 shares therein; she made a specific bequest of 15shares in the Canada Cement Company to her niece Helen Carvolth; she made a specific bequest of chattels to her sister Charlotte Edwards, and a specific bequest of her shares in the Ottawa transportation Company, Limited, to her son Gerald A. Wood; and after specific devises of real estate, her will concluded as follows:-... | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Roche Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| George Walkem Shannon and others v. lower Mainland Dairy Products Board and the Attorney General of British Columbia | [1938] UKPC 54 | This is an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversing a decision of Manson J. who had given judgment in the action in favour of the plaintiffs, the present appellants. the appellants were dairy farmers carrying on their business in the Province of British Columbia and were affected by a Milk Marketing Scheme approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under the Natural products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, Chapter 34, of the Statutes of 1936. | The Lord Chancellor (Lord Maugham) Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | British Columbia Court of Appeal |
| Attorney General of Alberta v. Attorney General of Canada (Reference re Alberta Statutes) | [1938] UKPC 46, [1939] A.C. 117 | This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Alberta from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada Duff C.J., Cannon, Crocket, davis, Kerwin and Hudson JJ. dated 4 March 1938, on a reference to them by the Governor-General of Canada under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 35). The subject of the reference and of this appeal is the power of the legislature of the Province of Alberta to enact three Bills which had been presented to the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta for assent on 5 October 1937, and reserved by him for the signification of the Governor-General’s pleasure. | The Lord Chancellor (Lord Maugham) Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Elizabeth Arminella Burrows Sifton v. Clifford Sifton and others | [1938] UKPC 41 | This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario which varied a judgment of Middleton J. given upon an application by way of originating motion brought by the respondents, Clifford Sifton and Wilfred Victor Sifton, the surviving trustees of the will of Clifford Winfield Burrows Sifton, deceased. By the motion of trustees sought the opinion, advice and direction of the Court on certain questions arising in the administration of that testator’s estate. | Lord Thankerton Lord Romer Sir Lancelot Sanderson |
Overturned | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Clifford Sifton and another v. Robert Oliver Sweezey | [1938] UKPC 9 | In this action the appellants, as executors of the late Clifford Winfield Burrows Sifton (hereinafter referred to as Winfield Sifton), seek to recover from the respondent the sum $50,000 with interest of $3,972.61, or $53,972.61 in all, as due in respect of an agreement made between the respondent and Winfield Sifton in 1927. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Maugham |
Overturned | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| The Canadian Shredded Wheat Company, Limited v. The Kellogg Company of Canada Limited and another | [1938] UKPC 11 | In this case the Canadian Shredded Wheat Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sued two defendants in the Supreme Court of Ontario, claiming an injunction to restrain an alleged infringement of registered trade marks and passing off of goods and damages. The Trial Judge dismissed the action with costs. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. the plaintiff now appeals to His Majesty in Council. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Maugham |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| The King v. Henri Jalbert and another | [1938] UKPC 3 | This appeal concerns a small plot of foreshore at Chicoutimi on the Saguenay River in the Province of Quebec. The respondent Jalbert is a timber merchant in the City of Chicoutimi who some years before 1907 acquired a plot of land of about 150 feet in width, fronting the river and going back to the Rue Racine in the City. He was accordingly a riparian proprietor with a right of access to the river. In 1907 he was granted by the Province of Quebec title to the piece of foreshore or beach lot in front of his land, where he was carrying on his timber business. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Maugham |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Corporation of the City of Toronto v. The Corporation of the Township of York | [1938] UKPC 5 | This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Ontario dismissing an appeal from an order of the Ontario Municipal Board which ordered the appellants tot make discovery of document and to permit inspection of their waterworks system and ordered the appellants’ Commissioner of Works to be examined on discovery. The Board made the order in pursuance of powers contained in the Ontario Municipal Board Act, 1932: and in the course of the application brought before them by the respondents the Corporation of the Township of York in pursuance of the Township of York Act, 1936. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Maugham |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Pioneer Laundry & Dry Cleaners Limited v. the Minister of National Revenue | [1939] UKPC 70 | This appeal is taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated the 12th December, 1938, which affirmed a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, dated the 4th November, 1937, whereby the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the respondent, affirming an assessment of the appellant to income tax for the tax year ending on the 31st March, 1933. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| The Minister of National Revenue v. The Trusts and Guarantee Company Limited | [1939] UKPC 67 | This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated the 19th December, 1938, reversing by a majority a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada given in his favour on the 4th January, 1938. The questions to be determined on the appeal is whether the respondents who are a Canadian company are, as the trustees of an indenture of the 27th May, 1918, liable to be assessed to income tax in respect of the income accumulated by them during the years 1919 to 1934 inclusive pursuant to the trust for accumulation contained in that indenture. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Overturned | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Francis Day & Hunter Limited v. Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Limited and others | [1939] UKPC 68 | In 1892 a song entitled “The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo” was published in London. It consisted of three verse, with a chorus and was written and composed by Fred Gilbert. Many people remember the original publication. Both words and music were of the most commonplace character, but the music went with a jaunty swing performed by Charles Coborn. The song consisting of words and music was duly registered at Stationers Hall in London and acquired copyright under the Copyright Act of 1842. But the performing right was not acquired, because of the failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the English Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1882, which required that the proprietor of the copyright if he desired to acquire and retain the right of public representation or performance should print upon the title page of every published copy a notice to the effect that the right of public representation or performance was reserved. | Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer Sir Lyman Poore Duff, C.J.C. |
Sustained | Ontario Supreme Court (Appellate Division) |
| The People of the State of New York v. Heirs of the late John M. Phillips and other | [1939] UKPC 58 | This is an appeal from the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side), Quebec, confirming a judgment of the Superior Court (Mercier J.) in favour of the defendants, the present respondents. The action arises in unusual circumstances. The plaintiffs are the People of the State of New York and they sue the defendants, the heirs of the late John M. Phillips, for damages for an alleged conspiracy between Phillips, one Connolly and one Seely to cheat and defraud the City of New York over the construction of sewers in the Borough of Queens in the City of New York. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Montreal Trust Company and another v. Canadian National Railway Company | [1939] UKPC 61 | In this case the Montreal Trust Company and one Seguin, appeal from a judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side) of the Province of Quebec, which affirmed a judgment of the Superior Court. The judgment declared a lease by Seguin to the Canadian National Railway Company, to be illegal and void, and dismissed with costs an action for rent thereunder brought by the Montreal Trust Company as transferee of Seguin’s rights under the lease. Seguin was summoned as mis-en-cause. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Canada Rice Mills Limited v. The King | [1939] UKPC 56 | This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada who dismissed an appeal from the President of the Exchequer Court on a claim by the Crown for sales tax on transaction by the appellant company. The case has been disposed of as it appeared to their Lordships in both Courts upon by the appellant company, who will be referred to as the Mills Company. | Lord Atkin Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Robert Oliver Sweezy v. Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited | [1939] UKPC 43 | In an action in which the executors of one Winfield Sifton deceased were plaintiffs and the present appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) was defendant, the appellant was by a judgment of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec (dated the 15th day of January, 1935), adjudged liable to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $50,000, referred to in the letters hereinafter mentioned. This judgment was reversed by the Court of King’s Bench (Appeal Side), but was restored on appeal to His Majesty in Council by Order in Council of the 24th February, 1938. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Romer Sir Sidney Rowlatt |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Edgar F. Ladore and others v. George Bennett and others | [1939] UKPC 33 | This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario affirming a decion of Hogg J. who dismissed the plaintiffs’ action. The plaintiffs’ claim was for a declaration that two statutes of Ontario providing for the amalgamation of certain municipalities in Ontario were ultra vires the legislature of Ontario, and that the corporations created in pursuance of those statutes were not valid or subsisting and a declaration that parts of other Ontario statutes, viz., the Ontario Municipal Board Act, 1932, and the Department of Municipal Affairs Act, 1935, and amendments thereto were also ultra vires. The questions raised in the case arise out of the affairs of four adjoining municipalities, the city of Windsor, the city of East Windsor, the town of Sanwhich and the town of Walkerville. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Vita Food Products Inc. v. Unus Shipping Co. Ltd. | [1939] UKPC 7 | This appeal arises out of a claim made against the respondent, a body corporate incorporated under the law of Nova Scotia now in liquidation, as owner of the motor vessel “Hurry On” registered at the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia. The claim was made by the appellant, a body corporate carrying on business at New York, in the United States, for damages and loss suffered in respect of consignments of herrings which were being carried in the “Hurry On” from Middle Arm, Newfoundland, to New York, and were delivered in a damaged condition. | Lord Atkin Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Porter |
Sustained | Nova Scotia Supreme Court en Banc |
| Dame Diana Meredith and other v. Dame Elizabeth Magadalene Meredith and other | [1939] UKPC 4 | This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of King’s Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side) affirming a judgment rendered by Chief Justice Greenshields in the Superior Court in favour of the respondents. It should be mentioned that the matter came before the trial judge sitting at Montreal, under the provision of article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon a joint factum of the appellants and respondents setting out an agreed statement of facts and a question of construction arising therefrom. | The Lord Chancellor (Lord Maugham) Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Romer |
Sustained | Quebec Court of King's Bench |
| Canadian Celanese Limited v. The B.V.D. | [1939] UKPC 3 | It is advisable to state at the outset the relevant facts which have led up to the prosecution of this appeal. The appellants are assignees of Canadian letters patent no. 265,9600 granted on the 16th November, 1926, to one Camille Dreyfus, concerning an alleged invention of “improvements relating to fabrics and sheet materials and the manufacture thereof.” It is not necessary to discuss the specification in detail. It is sufficient to say that it contains 25 claims of which the first 24 are process claims, and the 25th covers the product. The first claim may be taken as a sample of all, for in respect of their excessive breadth (to which reference will later be made) the claims are all identical. | Lord Thankerton Lord Russell of Killowen Lord Macmillan Lord Wright Lord Romer |
Sustained | Supreme Court of Canada |
See also
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1867-1869
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1870-1879
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1880-1889
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1890-1899
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1900-1909
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1910-1919
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1920-1929
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1940-1949
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Cases Originating in Canada, 1950-1959
Sources
- British and Irish Legal Information Institute: Privy Council Decisions
- 1931 Privy Council Decisions
- 1932 Privy Council Decisions
- 1933 Privy Council Decisions
- 1934 Privy Council Decisions
- 1935 Privy Council Decisions
- 1936 Privy Council Decisions
- 1937 Privy Council Decisions
- 1938 Privy Council Decisions
- 1939 Privy Council Decisions
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.