XML 33 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation 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 June 30, 2025 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 business, financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. However, an unexpected adverse resolution of one or more of these legal actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations, or liquidity in a particular quarter or fiscal year. Legal proceedings related to Lac-Mégantic rail accident On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by Montréal Maine and Atlantic Railway (“MMAR”) or a subsidiary, Montréal 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 and while the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train. Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of arrangement were approved in both Canada and the U.S. (the “Plans”), providing for the distribution of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment damages. A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced in Canada and the U.S. against the Company and others: (1)Québec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including the Company, to remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and served the Company with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs. The Company appealed the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim with the Administrative Tribunal of Québec. These proceedings are stayed pending determination of the Attorney General of Québec (“AGQ”) action (paragraph 2 below). (2)The AGQ sued the Company in the Québec Superior Court claiming $409 million in damages, which was further amended and reduced to $231 million (the “AGQ Action”). The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) the Company was responsible for the petroleum crude oil from its point of origin until its delivery to Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) the Company is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the MMA Group. (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 was certified against the Company on May 8, 2015 (the "Class Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr. Thomas Harding ("Harding") were added to the Class Action on January 25, 2017. On November 28, 2019, the plaintiffs' motion to discontinue their action against Harding was granted. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and economic loss. (4)Eight subrogated insurers sued the Company in the Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was amended and reduced to approximately $14 million (the “Promutuel Action”), and two additional subrogated insurers sued the Company claiming approximately $3 million in damages (the “Royal Action”). Both actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action. The actions do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the extent of any overlap between the damages claimed in these actions and under the Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed pending determination of the consolidated proceedings described below. On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the Promutuel Action were consolidated. The joint liability trial of these consolidated claims commenced on September 21, 2021 with oral arguments ending on June 15, 2022. The Québec Superior Court issued a decision on December 14, 2022 dismissing all claims against the Company, finding that the Company’s actions were not the direct and immediate cause of the accident and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. All three plaintiffs filed a declaration of appeal on January 13, 2023. The appeal was heard October 7 to 10, 2024 by the Québec Court of Appeal. On February 26, 2025, the Québec Court of Appeal issued its unanimous decision upholding the trial decision and dismissing the appeals in their entirety. On April 28, 2025, all three plaintiffs filed applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 30, 2025, the Company filed its response to the plaintiffs' leave applications. A damages trial will follow after the disposition of all appeals, if necessary. (5)Forty-eight plaintiffs (all individual claims joined in one action) sued the Company, MMAC, and Harding in the Québec Superior Court claiming approximately $5 million in damages for economic loss and pain and suffering, and asserting similar allegations as in the Class Action and the AGQ Action. The majority of the plaintiffs opted-out of the Class Action and all but two are also plaintiffs in litigation against the Company, described in paragraph 7 below. This action is stayed pending determination of the consolidated claims described above. (6)The MMAR U.S. bankruptcy estate representative commenced an action against the Company in November 2014 in the Maine Bankruptcy Court claiming that the Company failed to abide by certain regulations and seeking approximately U.S. $30 million in damages for MMAR’s loss in business value according to an expert report filed by the bankruptcy estate. This action asserts that the Company knew or ought to have known that the shipper misclassified the petroleum crude oil and therefore should have refused to transport it. Summary judgement motion was argued and taken under advisement on June 9, 2022. On May 23, 2023, the case management judge stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in the Canadian consolidated claims. On April 18, 2025, the Court lifted the stay and ordered briefing concerning the Company’s request for summary judgement based on the preclusive effect of matters decided in other Lac-Mégantic cases. The Court will address that basis for summary judgement first, then will address other arguments for summary judgement, if necessary, afterwards. (7)The class and mass tort action commenced against the Company in June 2015 in Texas (on behalf of Lac-Mégantic residents and wrongful death representatives) and the wrongful death and personal injury actions commenced against the Company in June 2015 in Illinois and Maine, were all transferred and consolidated in Federal District Court in Maine (the “Maine Actions”). The Maine Actions allege that the Company negligently misclassified and improperly packaged the petroleum crude oil. On the Company’s motion, the Maine Actions were dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal decision to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on June 2, 2021. The plaintiffs further petitioned the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing, which was denied on September 8, 2021. On January 24, 2022, the plaintiffs further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on two bankruptcy procedural grounds. On May 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition, thereby rejecting the plaintiffs' appeal. (8)The trustee for the wrongful death trust commenced Carmack Amendment claims against the Company in North Dakota Federal Court, seeking to recover approximately U.S. $6 million for damaged rail cars and lost crude oil and reimbursement for the settlement paid by the consignor and the consignee under the Plans (alleged to be U.S. $110 million and U.S. $60 million, respectively). The Court issued an Order on August 6, 2020 granting and denying in parts the parties' summary judgement motions which has been reviewed and confirmed following motions by the parties for clarification and reconsideration. Final briefs of dispositive motions for summary judgement and for reconsideration on tariff applicability were submitted on September 30, 2022. On January 20, 2023, the Court granted in part the Company's summary judgement motion by dismissing all claims for recovery of settlement payments but leaving for trial the determination of the value of the lost crude oil. It also dismissed the Company's motion for reconsideration on tariff applicability. The remaining issues of the value of the lost crude oil and applicability of judgement reduction provisions do not require trial, and were fully briefed in 2024. On January 5, 2024, the Court issued its decision finding that the Company is liable for approximately U.S. $3.9 million plus pre-judgement interest, but declined to determine whether judgement reduction provisions were applicable, referring the parties to a court in Maine on that issue. On January 18, 2024, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration for the Court to apply the judgement reduction provisions. On January 19, 2024, the trustee for the wrongful death trust filed a Notice of Appeal for the January 5, 2024 decision, as well as prior decisions. On February 23, 2024, the Court denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration, again referring the parties to a court in Maine to apply the judgement reduction provision. On March 6, 2024, the Company filed its notice of appeal of this latest ruling, as well as prior decisions. The appeal was heard on March 18, 2025. On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously allowed the Company’s appeal, reversing the district court decision and remanding the matter back to the district court for a complete reduction of the judgement against the Company. On July 17, 2025, the trustee for the wrongful death trust petitioned the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing. At this stage of the proceedings, any potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, the Company denies liability and is vigorously defending these proceedings. Court decision related to Remington Development Corporation legal claim On October 20, 2022, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta issued a decision in a claim brought by Remington Development Corporation (“Remington”) against the Company and the Province of Alberta (“Alberta”) with respect to an alleged breach of contract by the Company in relation to the sale of certain properties in Calgary. In its decision, the Court found the Company had breached its contract with Remington and Alberta had induced the contract breach. The Court found the Company and Alberta liable for damages of approximately $164 million plus interest and costs, and subject to an adjustment to the acquisition value of the property. In a further decision on August 30, 2023, the Court determined that adjustment and set the total damages at $165 million plus interest and costs. On October 20, 2023, the Court determined the costs payable to Remington, however, the Court had not provided any indication of how the damages, which were estimated to total approximately $232 million as at June 30, 2025, should be apportioned between the Company and Alberta. On November 17, 2022, the Company filed an appeal of the Court’s decision. On April 11, 2024, the Court of Appeal of Alberta ("ABCA") stayed the judgement pending the outcome of the appeal. On September 10, 2024, the ABCA heard the Company's appeal and reserved its decision. On July 2, 2025, the ABCA unanimously allowed the Company’s appeal and set aside the trial judgement and costs order. A majority of the ABCA ordered a new trial in the Court of King’s Bench. 2014 tax assessment On April 13, 2022, the Servicio de Administracion Tributaria ("SAT") delivered an audit assessment of CPKCM’s 2014 tax returns (the "2014 Assessment"). As at June 30, 2025, the 2014 Assessment, including inflation, interest, and penalties was Ps.6,372 million ($451 million). On July 7, 2022, CPKCM filed an administrative appeal (the “Administrative Appeal”) before the SAT, seeking to revoke the 2014 Assessment on the basis that the SAT’s notification of the 2014 Assessment through the tax mailbox was not legal, because it was in violation of a tax mailbox injunction previously granted to CPKCM on March 19, 2015. On September 26, 2022, the SAT dismissed the Administrative Appeal, on the basis that it was not a timely submission (the “Administrative Appeal Resolution”). On October 10, 2022, CPKCM submitted an annulment lawsuit (the "Annulment Lawsuit") before the Federal Administrative Court, challenging the 2014 Assessment, its notification, and the Administrative Appeal Resolution. On April 24, 2024, the Supreme Chamber of the Federal Administrative Court resolved the annulment lawsuit, confirming the Administrative Appeal Resolution and the 2014 Assessment (the "Administrative Court Resolution"). On June 21, 2024, CPKCM challenged the Administrative Court Resolution by submitting an Amparo lawsuit (Demanda de Amparo) before the Collegiate Circuit Court (Tribunal Colegiado de Circuito). On June 4, 2025, the Collegiate Circuit Court unanimously granted CPKCM’s Amparo petition, vacating the prior decision and sending the matter back to the Supreme Chamber of the Federal Administrative Court with an order to issue a new resolution addressing CPKCM’s arguments that were presented in the Annulment Lawsuit. On June 25, 2025, the Supreme Chamber of the Federal Administrative Court voted against CPKCM in the Annulment Lawsuit. CPKCM has the right to appeal the decision by filing an amparo appeal (juicio de amparo) with the Collegiate Circuit Court. The deadline to file the amparo appeal is August 21, 2025. CPKCM expects to prevail based on the technical merits of its case. On January 5, 2023, the Federal Administrative Court granted a definitive injunction against the enforcement and collection of the 2014 Assessment. On February 19, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court issued the new resolution granting the injunction as long as the 2014 Assessment is duly guaranteed. Environmental liabilities Environmental remediation accruals, recognized on an undiscounted basis unless a reliable, determinable estimate as to an amount and timing of costs can be established, cover site-specific remediation programs. The accruals for environmental remediation represent the Company’s best estimate of its probable future obligation and include both asserted and unasserted claims, without reduction for anticipated recoveries from third parties. Although the recognized accruals include the Company’s best estimate of all probable costs, the Company’s total environmental remediation costs cannot be predicted with certainty. Accruals for environmental remediation may change from time to time as new information about previously untested sites becomes known, and as environmental laws and regulations evolve and advances are made in environmental remediation technology. The accruals may also vary as the courts decide legal proceedings against outside parties responsible for contamination. These potential charges, which cannot be quantified at this time, may materially affect income in the particular period in which a charge is recognized. Costs related to existing, but as yet unknown, or future contamination will be accrued in the period in which they become probable and reasonably estimable. The expense included in “Purchased services and other” in the Company's Interim Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 was $2 million and $4 million respectively (three and six months ended June 30, 2024 - $2 million and $4 million, respectively). Provisions for environmental remediation costs are recognized in the Company's Interim Consolidated Balance Sheets in “Other long-term liabilities”, except for the current portion, which is recognized in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities”. The total amount provided as at June 30, 2025 was $246 million (December 31, 2024 - $257 million). Payments are expected to be made over 10 years through 2034.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration