Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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, 2018 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. However, an unexpected adverse resolution of one or more of these legal actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

Commitments

At December 31, 2018, the Company had committed to total future capital expenditures amounting to $586 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 $1.2 billion for the years 2019–2032, of which CP estimates approximately $951 million will be incurred in the next five years.

As at December 31, 2018, the Company’s commitments under operating leases were estimated at $485 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
2019	$	90
2020	71
2021	55
2022	50
2023	49
Thereafter	170
Total minimum lease payments	$	485

Minimal rental expense for operating leases for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $97 million (2017 – $104 million; 2016 – $111 million).

Legal proceedings related to Lac-Mégantic rail accident

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway (“MMAR”) or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. (“MMAC” and collectively the “MMA Group”), derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Québec. The derailment 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.

In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the U.S. (the “Plans”). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment damages.

A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced after the derailment in Canada and/or in the U.S. against CP and others:

(1) Québec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks (the "Minister") ordered various parties, including CP, to clean up the derailment site (the “Cleanup Order”). CP appealed the Cleanup Order to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (the “TAQ”). The Minister subsequently served a Notice of Claim seeking $95 million for compensation spent on cleanup. CP filed a contestation of the Notice of Claim with the TAQ (the “TAQ Proceeding”). CP and the Minister agreed to stay the TAQ Proceedings pending the outcome of the Province of Québec's action, described in the following paragraph.

(2) Québec’s Attorney General sued CP in the Québec Superior Court initially claiming $409 million in damages, which claim was amended and reduced to $315 million (the “Province’s Action”). The Province’s Action alleges that CP exercised custody or control over the petroleum crude oil until its delivery to

Irving Oil and, further, that CP was negligent in its custody and control of the petroleum crude oil and is therefore jointly and severally liable with third parties responsible for the derailment and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of MMAC.

(3) A class action 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”) was certified against CP, MMAC and the train conductor, Mr. Thomas Harding. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage arising from the derailment. All known wrongful death claimants in the Class Action have opted out and, by court order, cannot re-join the Class Action.

(4) Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Québec Superior Court initially claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which claim was amended and reduced to $14 million (the “Promutuel Action”). Two additional subrogated insurers sued CP in the Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $3 million in damages (the “Royal Action”). Both Actions contain essentially the same allegations as the Province’s Action. The lawsuits do not identify the parties to which the insurers are subrogated, and therefore the extent to which these claims overlap with the proof of claims process under the Plans is difficult to determine at this stage. The Royal Action has been stayed pending the determination of the consolidated proceedings described below.

The Province’s Action, the Class Action and the Promutuel Action have been consolidated and will proceed together through the litigation process in the Québec Superior Court. While each Action will remain a separate legal proceeding, there will be a trial to determine liability issues commencing mid-September 2020, and subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages issues.

(5) Forty-eight plaintiffs (all individual claims joined in one action) sued CP, MMAC and Harding in the Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $5 million in damages for economic loss and pain and suffering. These plaintiffs assert essentially the same allegations as those contained in the Class Action and the Province’s Action against CP. The plaintiffs assert they have opted-out of the Class Action. All but two of the plaintiffs were plaintiffs in litigation against CP, described below, that originated in the U.S. who either withdrew their claims or had their case dismissed in the U.S.

(6) An adversary proceeding commenced against CP in November 2014 in the Maine Bankruptcy Court by the MMAR U.S. estate representative (“Estate Representative”) accuses CP of failing to abide by certain regulations (the “Adversary Proceeding”). The Estate Representative alleges that CP knew or ought to have known that the shipper had misclassified the petroleum crude oil and therefore should have refused to transport it. The Estate Representative seeks damages for MMAR’s business value (as yet unquantified) allegedly destroyed by the derailment.

(7) A class action and mass tort action on behalf of Lac-Mégantic residents and wrongful death representatives commenced in Texas in June 2015 and wrongful death and personal injury actions commenced in Illinois and Maine in June 2015 against CP were all removed and subsequently transferred and consolidated in Federal District Court in Maine (the “Maine Actions”). The Maine Actions allege that CP negligently misclassified and mis-packaged the petroleum crude oil being shipped. On CP’s motion, the Maine Actions were dismissed by the Court on several grounds. The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal decision.

(8) The Trustee (“WD Trustee”) for the wrongful death trust (“WD Trust”), as defined and established by the Estate Representative under the Plans, asserts Carmack Amendment claims against CP in North Dakota federal court (the “Carmack Claims”). The WD Trustee seeks to recover approximately $6 million for damaged rail cars and lost crude and recover the settlement amounts the consignor and the consignee paid to the bankruptcy estates, alleged to be $110 million and $60 million, respectively. On CP’s motion, the District Court in North Dakota dismissed the Carmack Claims on timeliness grounds, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ("8CCA") reversed that decision. CP sought reconsideration by the 8CCA. That appeal was dismissed. CP will be seeking judicial review of this decision with the Supreme Court in February 2019. Failing this judicial review, CP will seek dismissal of the Carmack Claims on various other grounds.

At this stage of the proceedings, any potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, CP denies liability and is vigorously defending the above noted proceedings.