Commitments and contingencies

In the normal course of its operations, the Company becomes involved in various legal actions, including claims relating to injuries and damage to property. The Company maintains provisions it considers to be adequate for such actions. While the final outcome with respect to actions outstanding or pending at December 31, 2016, cannot be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of management that their resolution will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Commitments

At December 31, 2016, the Company had committed to total future capital expenditures amounting to $186 million and operating expenditures relating to supplier purchase obligations, such as locomotive maintenance and overhaul agreements, as well as agreements to purchase other goods and services amounting to approximately $2.5 billion for the years 2017–2032, of which CP estimates approximately $1.9 billion will be incurred in the next five years.

As at December 31, 2016, the Company’s commitments under operating leases were estimated at $450 million in aggregate, with minimum annual payments in each of the next five years and thereafter as follows:



(in millions of Canadian dollars)	Operating leases
2017	$	97
2018	66
2019	52
2020	44
2021	40
Thereafter	151
Total minimum lease payments	$	450

Expenses for operating leases for the year ended December 31, 2016, were $111 million (2015 – $127 million; 2014 – $121 million).

Legal proceedings related to Lac-Mégantic rail accident

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway (“MMA”) or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. (“MMAC” and collectively the “MMA Group”) derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Québec. The accident occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA Group. The previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.

Following this incident, Québec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks (the "Minister") ordered the named parties to recover the contaminants and to clean up the derailment site. On August 14, 2013, the Minister added CP as a party (the “Amended Cleanup Order”). CP appealed the Amended Cleanup Order to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec. On July 5, 2016, the Minister served a Notice of Claim for nearly $95 million of compensation spent on cleanup, alleging that CP refused or neglected to undertake the work. On September 6, 2016, CP filed a contestation of the Notice of Claim with the Administrative Tribunal of Québec. In October 2016, CP and the Minister agreed to stay the tribunal proceedings pending the outcome of the Province of Québec's action, set out below. The Court's decision to stay the tribunal proceedings is pending, but de facto, the file has been suspended. Directly related to that matter, on July 6, 2015, the Province of Québec sued CP in Québec Superior Court claiming $409 million in derailment damages, including cleanup costs. The Province alleges that CP exercised custody or control over the crude oil lading and that CP was otherwise negligent. Therefore, CP is said to be solidarily (joint and severally) liable with third parties responsible for the accident. The Province filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint in September 2016, but no date has been fixed for the hearing of this motion, as most of the Attorney General of Québec's lawyers have been on strike since October 2016 and current reports are that there is no imminent end in sight. As at the end of 2016, no timetable governing the conduct of this lawsuit has been ordered by the Québec Superior Court. This proceeding appears to be duplicative of the administrative proceedings.

A class action lawsuit has also been filed in the Québec Superior Court on behalf of persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating a business in or physically present in Lac-Mégantic at the time of the derailment (the “Class Action”). That lawsuit seeks derailment damages, including for wrongful death, personal injury, and property harm. On August 16, 2013, CP was added as a defendant. On May 8, 2015, the Québec Superior Court authorized (certified) the Class Action against CP, the shipper – Western Petroleum, and the shipper’s parent – World Fuel Services (collectively, the “World Fuel Entities”). The World Fuel Entities have since settled. The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, but subsequently withdrew it.

On October 24, 2016, the Québec Superior Court authorized class action proceedings against two additional defendants in the same matter discussed above, i.e., against MMAC and Mr. Thomas Harding. On December 9, 2016, the Superior Court granted CP's motion asking the latter to confirm the validity of the opt-outs from this class action by most of the estates of the deceased parties following the train derailment who had opted out to allow them to sue in the United States instead (i.e., the wrongful death cases, filed in the United States, which are further discussed hereinafter). As at the end of 2016, no timetable governing the conduct of this lawsuit has been ordered by the Québec Superior Court.

On July 4, 2016, eight subrogated insurers served CP with claims of approximately $16 million. On July 11, 2016, two additional subrogated insurers served CP with claims of approximately $3 million. The lawsuits do not identify the parties to which the insurers are subrogated, and therefore the extent of claim overlap and the extent that claims will be satisfied after proof of claim review and distribution from the Plans, referred to below, is difficult to determine. These lawsuits have been stayed until June 2, 2017.

In the wake of the derailment and ensuing litigation, MMAC filed for bankruptcy in Canada (the “Canadian Proceeding”) and MMA filed for bankruptcy in the United States (the “U.S. Proceeding”). Plans of arrangement have been approved in both the Canadian Proceeding and the U.S. Proceeding (the “Plans”). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment damages. The Plans also provide settling parties broadly worded third-party releases and injunctions preventing lawsuits against settlement contributors. CP has not settled and therefore will not benefit from those provisions. Both Plans do, however, contain judgment reduction provisions, affording CP a credit for the greater of (i) the settlement monies received by the plaintiff(s), or (ii) the amount, in contribution or indemnity, that CP would have been entitled to charge against third parties other than MMA and MMAC, but for the Plans' releases and injunctions. CP may also have judgment reduction rights, as part of the contribution/indemnification credit, for the fault of the MMA Group. Finally, the Plans provide for a potential re-allocation of the MMA Group’s liability among plaintiffs and CP, the only non-settling party.

An Adversary Proceeding filed by the MMA U.S. bankruptcy trustee (now, estate representative) against CP, Irving Oil, and the World Fuel Entities accuses CP of failing to ensure that World Fuel Entities or Irving Oil properly classified the oil lading and of not refusing to ship the misclassified oil as packaged. By that action the estate representative seeks to recover MMA's going concern value supposedly destroyed by the derailment. The estate representative has since settled with the World Fuel Entities and Irving Oil and now bases CP misfeasance on the railroad’s failure to abide in North Dakota by a Canadian regulation. That regulation supposedly would have caused the railroads to not move the crude oil train because an inaccurate classification was supposedly suspected. In a recently amended complaint, the estate representative named a CP affiliate, Soo Line Railroad Company ("Soo Line"), and asserts that CP and Soo Line breached terms or warranties allegedly contained in the bill of lading. CP's motion to dismiss this amended complaint was heard on December 20, 2016 and a decision is pending.

In response to one of CP’s motions to withdraw the Adversary Proceedings bankruptcy reference, the estate representative maintained that Canadian law rather than U.S. law controlled. The Article III court that heard the motion found that if U.S. federal regulations governed, the case was not complex enough to warrant withdrawal. Before the bankruptcy court, CP moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, but the court denied the motion because CP had participated in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Lac-Mégantic residents and wrongful death representatives commenced a class action and a mass action in Texas and wrongful death and personal injury actions in Illinois and Maine. CP removed all of these lawsuits to federal court, and a federal court thereafter consolidated those cases in Maine. These actions generally charge CP with misclassification and mis-packaging (that is, using inappropriate DOT-111 tank cars) negligence. On CP's motion, the Maine court dismissed all wrongful death and personal injury actions on several grounds on September 28, 2016. The plaintiffs’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on January 9, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 19, 2017. CP will file a motion to dismiss the appeal. If the ruling is upheld on appeal these cases will be litigated, if anywhere, in Canada. As previously mentioned, many of these plaintiffs had previously opted-out of the Québec Class Action in order to bring their claims in the United States. CP brought a motion on December 1, 2016 to seek a declaration from the Québec Superior Court that the plaintiffs who had opted were precluded from opting back into the Québec Class Action. CP’s motion was successful. Accordingly, if these plaintiffs seek to sue CP, they would have to do so in Québec in individual actions (they could also join their individual claims in the same individual action).

CP has received two damage to cargo notices of claims from the shipper of the oil, Western Petroleum. Western Petroleum submitted U.S. and Canadian notices of claims for the same damages and under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. Section 11706) Western Petroleum seeks to recover for all injuries associated with, and indemnification for, the derailment. Both jurisdictions permit a shipper to recover the value of damaged lading against any carrier in the delivery chain, subject to limitations in the carrier’s tariffs. CP’s tariffs significantly restrict shipper damage claim rights. Western Petroleum is part of the World Fuel Services Entities, and those companies settled with the trustee. In settlements with the estate representative the World Fuel Services Entities and the consignee (Irving Oil) assigned all claims against CP, if any, including Carmack Amendment claims. The estate representative has since designated a trust formed for the benefit of the wrongful death plaintiff to pursue those claims.

On April 12, 2016, the Trustee (the “WD Trustee”) for a wrongful death trust (the “WD Trust”), as defined and established under the confirmed Plans, sued CP in North Dakota federal court, asserting Carmack Amendment claims. The WD Trustee maintains that the estate representative assigned Carmack Amendment claims to the WD Trustee. The Plan supposedly gave the estate representative Carmack Amendment assignment rights. The WD Trustee seeks to recover amounts for damaged railcars (approximately $6 million), and the settlement amounts the consignor (i.e., the shipper, the World Fuel Entities) and the consignee (Irving Oil) paid to the bankruptcy estates, alleged to be $110 million and $60 million, respectively. The WD Trustee maintains that Carmack Amendment liability extends beyond lading losses to cover all derailment related damages suffered by the World Fuel Entities or Irving Oil. CP disputes this interpretation of Carmack Amendment exposure and maintains that CP’s tariffs preclude anything except a minimal recovery. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited and Soo Line Corporation, both non-carriers, have moved to dismiss the Carmack Amendment claims, which only apply to common carriers. CP has brought threshold motions to dismiss the Carmack Amendment claims. The determination of these motions is pending.

At this early stage of the proceedings, any potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, CP denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all derailment-related proceedings.