A long-service worker, a criminal case, and a firing the railway couldn't make stick
One of Canada's largest railways fought to make the firing of a long-service worker stick. It lost twice, and an arbitrator's ruling that a suspension fit the conduct better than dismissal now stands.
In a decision dated May 26, 2026, Justice Eleni Yiannakis of Quebec's Superior Court dismissed Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway's application to quash an arbitration award. The award, issued by arbitrator James Cameron of the Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration & Dispute Resolution on May 10, 2024, had set aside the dismissal of a machine operator with roughly 13 years of service and replaced it with a five-month suspension and loss of seniority.
A firing rooted in a criminal case
The worker was dismissed on April 6, 2021, for what the company called conduct unbecoming, a label it tied to criminal charges of sexual assault and assault of his girlfriend, along with a failure to comply with conditions.
He was later found guilty of assault and multiple failures to comply with conditions, and spent about seven months incarcerated. In July 2023, he was placed on a twelve-month probation order.
The union grieved the firing. The arbitrator heard the matter in March 2024 and issued his award that May, concluding that dismissal was not warranted and that a five-month suspension was the appropriate response in the circumstances.
Why the arbitrator pulled back from dismissal
The arbitrator found the worker's misconduct serious, not isolated in light of a prior suspension for conduct unbecoming, and capable of harming the company's reputation. He weighed the gravity of the offences, the worker's record and seniority, and the incarceration.
The deciding factor was his overall assessment of the relationship. The arbitrator concluded that, in the circumstances, "there was not a complete breakdown of trust in the employment relationship," reaching that view after comparing the case with other railway arbitration decisions.
The court noted that the evidentiary record before the arbitrator included material on the employee's rehabilitation. That material was not mentioned in the award itself, but it formed part of the record the arbitrator relied on to reach his decision.
Why the railway's challenge failed
The railway then asked the court to overturn the award, but it served its application 42 days after receiving it, beyond the roughly 30-day window treated as reasonable. The company pointed to competing demands on its legal and labour teams, and the court found that explanation fell short of the exceptional circumstances needed to excuse the delay, dismissing the application on that ground alone.
The court assessed the award anyway, under a reasonableness standard, and found the arbitrator's logic held together. Reading his conclusions on the sanction and on the dismissal as one analysis rather than two, the court said, "They simply go together."
The application was dismissed and the award upheld, with costs. The court added that the question was likely moot in any event, since the employee no longer works at the railway.
See Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway c. Cameron, 2026 QCCS 1987
