Court of Appeal Clears CP Rail of Liability in Lac-Mégantic Disaster

A three-judge panel from Quebec's Court of Appeal has denied all appeals related to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, upholding a 2022 lower court ruling that absolved Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) of legal liability. The decision, delivered in February 2025, confirmed Superior Court Justice Martin Bureau's previous judgment that CP's actions were not the "direct, immediate and…

Lucas Nguyen Avatar

By

Court of Appeal Clears CP Rail of Liability in Lac-Mégantic Disaster

A three-judge panel from Quebec's Court of Appeal has denied all appeals related to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, upholding a 2022 lower court ruling that absolved Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) of legal liability. The decision, delivered in February 2025, confirmed Superior Court Justice Martin Bureau's previous judgment that CP's actions were not the "direct, immediate and logical cause" of the catastrophic events on July 6, 2013. That day, a runaway train carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, causing an explosion that tragically claimed 47 lives.

The disaster struck the small town of Lac-Mégantic, home to 6,000 residents, when a train operated by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway Limited (MMA) broke loose. The train's driver, Thomas Harding, along with his employer, MMA, was found responsible for the grim incident. The train was neither operated by CP employees nor traveling on CP tracks at the time of the derailment. Despite this, Canadian Pacific Railway was targeted in a class-action lawsuit alongside 23 other companies.

The class-action lawsuit aimed to secure contributions from the railway company to a compensation fund established for about 4,000 victims of the disaster. This fund accumulated approximately $460 million, with contributions from various companies. However, CP was the only company that refused to voluntarily pay into this fund. The appeals, brought forward by a group of citizens, insurance firms that contributed to the fund, and the Quebec government, sought to compel CP to contribute financially.

The appellants argued that CP should be held accountable and contribute to the compensation fund. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal found that they failed to demonstrate any errors in fact or law in Justice Bureau’s ruling. The court's conclusion aligned with the findings that CP's conduct did not directly contribute to the disaster's occurrence.

Lucas Nguyen Avatar