Ad Hoc AH 807-S2

Year: 2026

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway (CPKC)

Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC)

Arbitrator: Graham J. Clarke

Note

AH807-S2, is the second supplemental ruling and the forth award in this case involving CPKC and the TCRC’s member, Mr. Calibaba. This award resolved the parties’ different interpretations of the remedial order in AH807-S, including whether Mr. Calibaba’s compensation payments and benefit coverage would continue indefinitely.

Decision Text (Preview)

AH807-S2 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c L-2.

BETWEEN: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) -and-

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway Company (CPKC)

Interpretation dispute regarding the remedial relief awarded to Mr. Calibaba

Arbitrator: Graham J. Clarke Date: July 15, 2026

Appearances:

TCRC: K. Stuebing: Legal Counsel D. Fulton: General Chairperson J. Hnatiuk: Vice General Chairperson W. Calibaba: Grievor

CPKC: A. Harrison: Manager, Labour Relations, Calgary, AB

Arbitration held via videoconference on June 16, 2026 (Award held in abeyance while parties held settlement discussions). TABLE OF CONTENTS Background ..................................................................................................................... 3 Facts ............................................................................................................................... 4 Phase 1: AH807........................................................................................................... 4 Phase 2: AH807-S ....................................................................................................... 5 Post phase 2 chronology ............................................................................................. 6 Parties’ positions ........................................................................................................... 11 TCRC......................................................................................................................... 11 CPKC......................................................................................................................... 11 Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 13 The remedial order .................................................................................................... 13 Decision ..................................................................................................................... 15 Disposition..................................................................................................................... 17

2 Award BACKGROUND

This award represents the fourth decision arising from CPKC’s termination of Mr. Calibaba’s employment in 2020 and the arbitrator’s later reinstatement order. The April 29, 2026 procedural award AH807-P 1 described the previous arbitrations (footnotes omitted):
The arbitrator has issued two awards for this matter involving the grievor, Mr. Calibaba. In AH807, the arbitrator in 2022 concluded that CPKC had no reasonable grounds to conduct a drug test for Mr. Calibaba and ordered his reinstatement. In AH807-S, the arbitrator in 2025 ordered CPKC to reinstate Mr. Calibaba to his position “on paper”, pay him human rights damages and conduct the duty to accommodate process.
The parties returned before the arbitrator due to their differing positions about the “weekly indemnity benefits” 2 (WIB) aspect of this remedial relief from AH807-S 3:
For the reasons described above, the arbitrator orders CPKC to:

Reinstate Mr. Calibaba immediately to his position “on paper” which includes access to all his CBA entitlements;
Pay Mr. Calibaba immediately, with interest, the 40% compensation improperly withheld for the Period (January 1, 2023 to May 2, 2023);
If required based on the current medical evidence, immediately commence the duty to accommodate process;
Compensate Mr. Calibaba, with interest, for any lost benefits, the particulars of which the arbitrator leaves to the parties to calculate;
Pay Mr. Calibaba immediately, with interest, compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 onward, until either he returns to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position;
Pay immediately $20,000 in damages to Mr. Calibaba.

1 AH807-P: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, 2026 CanLII

38964 2 The arbitrator understands that the WIB represents CPKC’s short term disability program. 3 AH807-S: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, 2025 CanLII

32982

3 138. The arbitrator remains seized for any continuing issues arising in this matter.

(Emphasis added)

The current dispute arose when CPKC, relying on the collective agreement’s (CBA) WIB provisions, terminated Mr. Calibaba’s benefit coverage.
The TCRC maintained that the CBA’s WIB provisions did not apply under the arbitrator’s order and referenced the remedial wording ordering “compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 onward, until either he returns to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position”. In the TCRC’s view, there was no end date for the arbitrator’s WIB equivalent compensation order.
CPKC argued that it had already maintained Mr. Calibaba’s benefits longer than would have been required under the CBA’s WIB and had no obligation to do so “for eternity”.
For the following reasons, the arbitrator orders CPKC to reinstate Mr. Calibaba’s benefits, compensate him for any losses and to continue WIB payments and benefit coverage until December 31, 2026.

FACTS

The previous awards set out the facts in significant detail. They provided remedies for each distinct phase of Mr. Calibaba’s situation.

Phase 1: AH8074

Paragraphs 2 and 5 of AH807 summarized the essential context (footnotes omitted):
On November 6, 2020, CP terminated Conductor Calibaba’s employment for “Your violation of the CP Alcohol and Drug Policy and Procedure (HR 203 and 203.1) – Canada”. CP had received an anonymous tip on its Alert Line (A-Line) about Mr. Calibaba’s alleged marijuana consumption and an intent to “clean his system” in the event of a urine test. Based on this information, CP conducted drug and alcohol testing.

…

4 AH807: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 2022 CanLII 120899

4 5. For the reasons which follow, the arbitrator orders CP to reinstate Mr. Calibaba with full compensation and seniority. CP failed to demonstrate how an anonymous tip from its A-Line provided it with reasonable grounds to test Mr. Calibaba for drugs and alcohol. The Record also did not disclose any steps CP took under its Drug and Alcohol Policy (Policy) to ensure it had reasonable grounds before proceeding with testing. Even if there had been grounds for testing, the results showed that Mr. Calibaba was not impaired when subject to duty.

The arbitrator ordered these remedial steps for Phase 1:
For the above reasons, the arbitrator concludes that CP had no reasonable grounds to test Mr. Calibaba. Consequently, it had no grounds to impose any discipline.
The arbitrator grants the TCRC’s remedial request that Mr. Calibaba be reinstated to his position with no loss of seniority and full compensation for all lost wages and benefits. Mr. Calibaba is entitled to interest on these amounts.
The arbitrator remains seized for any issues which result from this award.

Phase 2: AH807-S5

The opening paragraphs in AH807-S provide the context which persuaded the arbitrator to order further remedial relief, including damages (footnotes omitted):
CPKC has yet to reinstate Mr. Calibaba despite the December 20, 2022 statutory order or decision (also referred to herein as “SDO”) issued pursuant to the Code.
Notwithstanding that AH807 concluded that no reasonable grounds existed to test Mr. Calibaba, and despite his further passing of a reinstatement drug/alcohol test on December 27, 2022, CPKC refused to reinstate him, in part, unless he agreed to undergo a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) assessment. CPKC maintained that Mr. Calibaba had refused to cooperate with the SAP requirement and later advised him that his reinstatement file had been closed.
The TCRC argued that CPKC had failed to respect AH807 and that its actions, besides depriving Mr. Calibaba of access to crucial collective agreement (CBA) benefits, had further discriminated against him because of disability under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

5 AH807-S: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, 2025 CanLII

32982

5 6. The Record confirmed that CPKC’s failure over more than two years to respect the SDO and reinstate Mr. Calibaba has caused him significant prejudice, including both financially and to his health.

For the following reasons, the arbitrator orders CPKC to reinstate Mr. Calibaba immediately. This award will describe the additional compensation owing to Mr. Calababa, some of which the parties may need to calculate. The arbitrator also grants the TCRC’s request for an order that CPKC pay a total of $20,000 damages.
AH807-S then provided various grounds of relief which will be examined in greater detail below.

Post phase 2 chronology

CPKC paid the compensation ordered in AH807-S. The parties could not agree however how long Mr. Calibaba’s benefit coverage should continue when he could not return to work.
January 12, 2026: TCRC wrote 6 to CPKC about Mr. Calibaba’s payments stopping: As per the attached pic, Mr. Calibaba is no longer receiving WIB equivalent payments. I trust this is a mistake.

Let me know when this rectified.

January 13, 2026: CPKC advised 7 that the change was “not intentional”: This was not intentional. As discussed when the "lump sums" were entered last year for him, the new 2026 rate would need to be entered.

I have asked employee services to update and add him to the off cycle. Payments are added until the 2nd quarter and will need to re-evaluate his status at that time.

February 17, 2026: TCRC advised 8 CPKC that Sunlife had terminated Mr. Calibaba’s benefits:

6 TCRC documents, PDF page 75/522. 7 TCRC documents, PDF page 74/522. 8 TCRC documents, PDF page 74/522.

6 I understand that Mr. Calibaba attempted to submit a benefit claim and was informed that effective January 28, 2026, his benefits were terminated by Sunlife. He currently has prescriptions pending payment as well as upcoming medical appointments requiring benefits.

I trust this will be rectified asap. Let me know.

March 6, 2026: Health Services advised the parties that it had received medical reports 9 indicating that Mr. Calibaba could perform certain work: We have received medical reports which indicate the following fitness for duty status: RESTRICTED FROM SAFETY CRITICAL DUTIES RESTRICTED FROM SAFETY SENSITIVE DUTIES Medically fit for Non-Safety Sensitive duties Our disability management team will connect with Willie regarding accommodations in modified duty.
March 9, 2026: CPKC explained 10 why Mr. Calibaba lost his benefits: As promised, I investigated Mr. Calibaba's benefits and determined why they became inactive.

As you know, unionized employees are not eligible to continue benefits beyond the 41 weeks during WIB. As he has not returned to work yet and had reached the 41 weeks of WIB equivalent, the system automatically turned off his benefits. Typically, employees would receive advance notification but because he is not actually on WIB, the system did not send one.

I have requested an extension for the time being and should there be any changes, he will be notified.

March 16, 2026: CPKC’s Health Services advised 11 the parties that a medical report found Mr. Calibaba unfit for all work: Health Services has received medical reports which indicate the following fitness for duty status:

UNFIT for all work, including sedentary duties

9 TCRC documents, PDF page 100/522. 10 TCRC documents, PDF page 77/522. 11 TCRC documents, PDF page 99/522.

7 19. April 1, 2026: CPKC informed 12 Mr. Calibaba his benefits would end on April 30, 2026: Further to previous correspondence regarding your continuation of Sun Life Health and Dental benefits, please be advised that your Sun Life Health and Dental benefits will now end on April 30, 2026. Under usual circumstances, unionized employees are not eligible to continue benefits beyond 52 weeks during a medical LOA (41 weeks during WIB, plus an additional 11 weeks). However, due to the unique circumstances of your situation and on a purely ex gratia basis, your benefits have been extended for 55 weeks up to and including April 30, 2026.

After April 30, 2026, your benefits will cease unless you return to work either in your own position or a modified/accommodated position.

If you have any concerns, please reach out to your Union Representative. For your convenience, they have been copied in this correspondence.

April 6, 2026: TCRC advised 13 CPKC that stopping Mr. Calibaba’s benefits would violate the remedial order in AH807-S which it maintained had no end date: Please note that CPKC is not at liberty to terminate Mr. Calibaba's benefits as of April 30. Doing so would be in breach of the Arbitrator's Order in AH 807-S.

In that decision, Arbitrator Clarke found that CPKC had wrongfully "deprived Mr. Calibaba of access to the CBA's health and dental benefits." This was despite multiple medical disabilities, including his major depressive disorder, which require critical support.

Mr. Clarke therefore ordered CPKC to "Reinstate Mr. Calibaba immediately to his position "on paper" which includes access to all his CBA entitlements". Mr. Calibaba was not on a "medical leave" and entitled to both compensation and his benefits. There was no end-date to this Order. Under AH 807-S, there is no basis on which benefits terminate as of April 30.

CPKC's denial of benefits earlier this year have caused real harm to Mr. Calibaba and have set back his medical recovery. We urge the Company to maintain his benefits, consistent with the Arbitrator's Order, and continue to facilitate the accommodation process.

Should the Company be unwilling to do so, TCRC will be compelled to write to Arbitrator Clarke for further directions (as well as damages) on an urgent basis.

12 TCRC documents, PDF page 80/522. 13 TCRC documents, PDF page 79/522.

8 Thank you for your time and attention. We welcome your response at your earliest convenience.

April 7, 2026: CPKC advised TCRC 14 it could take the matter to arbitration: Further to our conversation the other day, should you need to reach out to Arbitrator Clarke, please do so.
April 20, 2026: TCRC wrote 15 the arbitrator requesting adjudication: ...

A continuing issue has surfaced requiring timely resolution.

In January 2026, CPKC terminated Mr. Calibaba's access to the CBA's health and dental benefit entitlements. CPKC's denial of benefits earlier this year adversely affected Mr. Calibaba's recovery/access to treatment.

After reinstating them in March, the Company has indicated that his access to the CBA's health and dental benefit entitlements will cease as of April 30, 2026. This will once again prove highly detrimental for Mr. Calibaba in light of his disabilities.

Despite repeat pleas from the Union, CPKC has confirmed that it will not continue his benefits beyond April 30, 2026. CPKC is doing so without any legitimate reason. Mr. Calibaba is not on a "medical leave" and entitled to both compensation and his benefits.

TCRC seeks orders that CPKC:

Reinstate and/or maintain all of the Griever's benefits forthwith.
Compensate the Griever for all related expenses.
Such further relief, including damages, as the Union may request and the Arbitrator deems appropriate.

The Union has advised CPKC that resolving this matter in dispute will require your adjudication.

...

14 TCRC documents, PDF page 79/522. 15 TCRC documents, PDF page 82/522.

9 23. April 21, 2026: Mr. Calibaba provided CPKC with a letter 16 from his physician indicating the potential health impacts if benefit coverage ceased.

April 29, 2026: The arbitrator issued AH807-P 17 which granted TCRC’s request that this arbitration continue via videoconference, the format used for all other hearing days in this case.
May 4, 2026: Mr. Calibaba wrote 18 SunLife about the state of his benefits: ***Am I CURRENTLY ENROLLED with ACTIVE Benefits???

And if YES… then WHEN (Date) Did the Sun Life Benefits become ACTIVATED???

And by Whose Authority???

With regards and thanking you in Advance for your Speedy response.

May 6, 2026: SunLife responded 19 to Mr. Calibaba’s request: Thank you for reaching out. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and we are happy to clarify your benefits status.

Based on our records, you are not currently enrolled with active Medical and Dental benefits. Your employer authorized the termination of your coverage, because you opted out of the plan. Please note that Life Insurance remains your only active benefit at this time.

If you would like to review your coverage details, we encourage you to log into your mySunLife.ca account. Once logged in, simply click on the enrollment link located on the main page. Your personalized coverage summary is available there and contains all the information you need.

If you have any further questions or require additional assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We are here to help.

(Emphasis added)

16 TCRC documents, PDF page 110/522. 17 Teamsters Canada Rail Conference v Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, 2026 CanLII 38964 18 TCRC documents, PDF page 97/522. 19 TCRC documents, PDF page 97/522.

10 PARTIES’ POSITIONS 27. As noted above, the parties interpreted the arbitrator’s remedial order differently.

TCRC 28. The TCRC’s Brief argued that the arbitrator’s remedial order contained no time limit and therefore CPKC could not rely on the CBA to end coverage for Mr. Calibaba’s benefits: 49. It is the Union’s position that there is no justification for CPKC’s denial of Mr. Calibaba’s CBA entitlements to health and dental benefits. TCRC respectfully submits that CPKC’s actions are in clear breach of your order in AH 807-S.

…

You ordered CPKC to “Reinstate Mr. Calibaba immediately to his position ”on paper” which includes access to all his CBA entitlements”.
By virtue of this Order, Mr. Calibaba was an employee entitled to both compensation and his benefits. There was no end-date to this Order. Under AH 807-S, there is no basis on which this access to benefits terminate as of April 30, 2026.
CPKC’s March 9 and April 1 communications assert that Mr. Calibaba’s benefits entitlements end because employees on WIB are only entitled to 41 weeks of such CBA benefits entitlements.
This position ignores the remedial nature of your SDO in AH 807-S. You did not order Mr. Calibaba to be entitled to or in receipt of WIB benefits. Rather, your order was for CPKC to pay “Mr. Calibaba immediately, with interest, compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 onward, until either he returns to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position.”
Mr. Calibaba’s ongoing compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate of pay is not the same as being a WIB claimant under the CBA. Per your SDO, Mr. Calibaba is to receive the equivalent of such until such time as he returns to work as a Conductor or a reasonably accommodated position. Neither has happened.

(Emphasis added)

CPKC 29. In its Brief, CPKC justified its actions under the CBA’s WIB provisions:

11 10. The Company respectfully submits that it has fully complied with the Arbitrator’s award and that the Grievor’s health and dental benefits have properly ceased in accordance with the Collective Agreement.

As outlined above, the Grievor was to be reinstated on paper and have access to all his CBA entitlements. The Company has fully complied with this requirement.
In addition, the Company was to compensate the Grievor for any lost benefits. The Company has fully complied with this requirement and compensated the Grievor for any “lost” benefits during the initial and supplemental awards.
As per Article 37.01 (2) of the Collective Agreement, “effective January 1, 2013, extend the continuation of coverage for extended health care, dental, and basic like insurance up to 41 weeks provided the employee is receiving short term disability benefits” (Tab 5).

…

As the Arbitrator awarded that the Company pay the Grievor the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 onward, until either he returns to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position, the Company in good faith extended his benefits as if he were on short term disability (WIB). In addition, and as outlined in the April 1, 2026 e-mail (Tab 3), due to his unique circumstances and on a purely ex gratia basis, his benefits were extended for 55 weeks up to and including April 30, 2026.

…

These principles apply in this instance. The negotiated language of the collective agreement is clear and unambiguous. In addition, the Union cannot establish reliable evidence that the parties agree that the interpretation is different than the plain and ordinary meaning in the collective agreement.
Furthermore, Arbitrators are obligated to interpret and apply collective agreements impartially. If the Arbitrator were to accept the Union’s assertions that the Grievor’s benefits should continue for eternity, this would create an extreme inequality amongst the Unionized workforce. While much of the applicable case law concerning extreme inequality refers to interest arbitration, a nexus can be made to the rights arbitration and the doctrine of unconscionability. Meaning that if the Arbitrator were to grant the Union’s requests, not only would it be contrary to the negotiated language between the parties but it would be unjust and overwhelmingly one-sided (Tab 12).

(Emphasis added)

12 ANALYSIS

Introduction 30. In expedited railway arbitrations, the parties’ Briefs often mention remedy but without adding detailed submissions on the issue. This process works almost all the time 20. The parties consistently resolve their remedial disputes themselves.

Mr. Calibaba’s situation suggests that some cases may need fuller submissions about remedy, in part to flag for an arbitrator any administrative or CBA issues those requests may cause. Alternatively, after a finding of liability, the parties may need to file additional submissions to address the requested remedies.
The challenge for the parties comes from identifying which cases require either detailed submissions on remedy or a bifurcated procedure. Both scenarios will delay to the parties’ expedited arbitration process.

The remedial order

For ease of reference, the arbitrator reproduces the remedial language from AH807-S which gives rise to the current dispute:
For the reasons described above, the arbitrator orders CPKC to:

Reinstate Mr. Calibaba immediately to his position “on paper” which includes access to all his CBA entitlements;
Pay Mr. Calibaba immediately, with interest, the 40% compensation improperly withheld for the Period (January 1, 2023 to May 2, 2023);
If required based on the current medical evidence, immediately commence the duty to accommodate process;
Compensate Mr. Calibaba, with interest, for any lost benefits, the particulars of which the arbitrator leaves to the parties to calculate;
Pay Mr. Calibaba immediately, with interest, compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 onward, until either he returns to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position;
Pay immediately $20,000 in damages to Mr. Calibaba.

20 CROA 4505-S - Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2020 CanLII

48641

13 138. The arbitrator remains seized for any continuing issues arising in this matter.

(Emphasis added)

Paragraph 93 in AH807-S had reproduced the TCRC’s request for remedial relief, including its alternative request for compensation based on the “equivalent of the WIB rate”:
The TCRC asked the arbitrator to issue the following remedies (the issue of damages will be considered in a separate section):
For all of the foregoing reasons, TCRC seeks the following Orders: a. Resume the reinstatement process, including providing the Grievor particulars of his pending SAP assessment. b. Reinstate the Grievor’s benefits forthwith. c. Compensate the Grievor for his outstanding losses, including: i. An order that Mr. Calibaba be compensated for his lost benefits following his dismissal to date. ii. Finalizing the calculation of lost wages between his dismissal and May 2, 2023 to exclude a reduction for failure to mitigate for the period of January 1, 2023 to May 2, 2023 iii. Compensation from May 2, 2023 forward:
Lost wages similarly calculated with the same comparator for the period of May 3, 2023 to his return to active service with no reductions.
In the alternative, consistent with such non- safety critical accommodated work as ought to have been made available to Mr. Calibaba, pursuant to the Company’s statutory duty to accommodate, until he became fit for safety critical duties;
In the alternative, compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate from May 3, 2023 until he became fit for his safety critical duties and his return to active service. …

(Emphasis added)

In the final paragraph of AH807-S, the arbitrator remained seized for any remedial issues:
The arbitrator remains seized for any continuing issues arising in this matter.

14 Decision 36. CPKC did not bring this matter back to the arbitrator prior to applying its interpretation of the remedial order and terminating Mr. Calibaba’s benefits. This resulted in Mr. Calibaba losing benefit coverage.

The arbitrator respectfully cannot adopt either party’s interpretation of the remedial order. The remedial order intended to provide Mr. Calibaba with income and benefits while the parties finalized his return to work. These payments would also move him along the path if he needed to access other entitlements, such as LTD.
The remedial order also contemplated that duty to accommodate issues might exist, which is why the arbitrator reinstated Mr. Calibaba “on paper” rather than directly to his original conductor position.
In AH822 21, the arbitrator had previously issued a similar type of remedial order [footnotes omitted]:
The IBEW has satisfied the arbitrator that CP did not respect its duty to accommodate obligations. The arbitrator has some sympathy with both side’s positions, however.
For Mr. X, he did everything CP asked of him after the Original Decision ordered him reinstated in his position. He underwent multiple medical exams and understood from his doctors that no medical impediment prevented him from returning to his position as an S&C Maintainer. Despite this evidence, CP placed him in a lower-paying temporary position outside the bargaining unit. Mr. X performed these duties while awaiting the outcome of this arbitration.
For CP, the medical reports may well raise some concerns. CP generally has concerns about ensuring safety in its operations. But there needs to be some explanation for CP rejecting Mr. X’s doctors’ opinions, including that of his neurologist.
A court would no doubt find an arbitrator’s decision arbitrary if a conclusion relied on one party’s evidence but ignored the other party’s contradictory evidence. The same conclusion by analogy applies in this case. The arbitrator could only find that CP respected its duty to accommodate by ignoring all of the IBEW’s medical evidence. There is no rational reason for doing that.

21International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers System Council No. 11 v Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 2023 CanLII 13643

15 71. The arbitrator orders CP to reinstate Mr. X in his original S&C Maintainer position, at least on paper. CP will fully compensate Mr. X, less any sums he earned in his non-bargaining unit position.

The arbitrator orders reinstatement “at least on paper”. While Mr. X should not suffer prejudice due to the delays in this matter, the parties still need to complete a proper duty to accommodate analysis. This includes addressing the conflicts in the medical evidence about whether Mr. X can resume his full duties.
Should the parties not resolve the situation themselves, then they may have to prepare to have the doctors testify. Cross-examination remains the best method a tribunal has for resolving crucial evidentiary conflicts like those in the case.
The arbitrator remains seized.

(Emphasis added)

The arbitrator disagrees with the TCRC’s suggestion that the remedy in AH807-S will continue indefinitely. Despite paraphrasing the TCRC’s remedial request and its reference to WIB, the arbitrator never awarded unlimited compensation to Mr. Calibaba. The CBA deals with scenarios where an employee remains unable to work. The parties must read the remedial order with that context in mind.
But the arbitrator also disagrees with CPKC that the CBA’s WIB provisions explicitly applied to Mr. Calibaba. The remedial order, besides paraphrasing the TCRC’s request, did not place Mr. Calibaba on WIB. The arbitrator hesitated to do so given the possibility of unknown technical issues arising which the parties had not flagged. The arbitrator designed the remedial order to ensure income and benefits for Mr. Calibaba while the parties resolved any issues. That remedial order does not rewrite the CBA in any way.
Unfortunately, Mr. Calibaba appears, under the most recent medical information provided on March 16, 2026, unable to do any work at the current time. Various support regimes exist for employees who remain unable to work despite attempts at accommodation. The arbitrator understood from comments at the hearing that the TCRC administers the LTD regime.
In summary, the remedial order did not create for Mr. Calibaba an entitlement to indeterminate WIB-like payments, something unavailable to other employees in the TCRC’s bargaining unit. Instead, the remedy remained silent on what would happen if Mr.

16 Calibaba could not return “to his home position or to a reasonably accommodated position”22. That scenario has now arisen.

Given the facts as examined above, and CPKC’s unilateral decision to proceed with its interpretation of the remedial order despite the TCRC’s objection, the arbitrator will order CPKC to reinstate Mr. Calibaba’s benefits and reimburse any costs he incurred during the time when it had cut off coverage. CPKC did not deny SunLife’s comment to Mr. Calibaba that CPKC had advised that he had “opted out of the plan” 23. The facts do not support any such action by Mr. Calibaba.
The arbitrator will also address the time frame of the remedial order given the parties’ different interpretations. The remedial order in AH807-S, for WIB equivalent compensation and benefit coverage, will continue up to and including December 31,
The arbitrator has previously issued remedial orders for earlier phases of this matter and therefore declines to award additional damages and certain other requested remedies arising from this interpretation dispute. During the hearing, the parties referenced other possible issues but agreed they did not form part of their submissions for this supplemental award.

DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, the arbitrator orders CPKC to:
Reinstate Mr. Calibaba’s benefits forthwith;
Compensate Mr. Calibaba, with interest, for any benefits costs incurred; and
Continue to pay Mr. Calibaba compensation per the equivalent of the WIB rate;
The remedial order requiring payment of this ongoing compensation and benefit coverage will end after December 31, 2026.

22 AH807-S, paragraph 137. 23 TCRC documents, PDF page 97/522.

17 49. The arbitrator remains seized.

SIGNED at Ottawa this 15th day of July 2026

Graham J. Clarke Arbitrator