Canadian Bill of Rights
Ritchie's judgements were typically conservative, which often put him on side with Ronald Martland and Wilfred Judson. He is best known for a pair of conflicting decisions concerning the "Canadian Bill of Rights": "R. v. Drybones" and "Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell". In "Drybones", Ritchie wrote the majority decision for the Court, holding that a provision of the "Indian Act" was inoperative because it conflicted with the "Canadian Bill of Rights". However, in "Lavell", Ritchie wrote the majority decision holding that a federal statute such as the "Indian Act" could not be held inoperative because of the Bill of Rights.