Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) found that William Katz was an employee of Canadian Pacific Railway Company o/a Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway (CPKC), not a manager, and that he was “unjustly dismissed by [CPKC] by way of a constructive dismissal” under the Canada Labour Code.
• The unjust dismissal provisions in Division XIV of the Code would not apply if Mr. Katz were a manager, because subsection 167(3) provides that those provisions do not apply to a manager.
• CPKC argued on judicial review that the CIRB breached procedural fairness by deciding the matter without an oral hearing and by allegedly depriving CPKC of a meaningful opportunity to respond to Mr. Katz’s reply submissions on whether he was a manager.
• The Federal Court of Appeal held that section 16.1 of the Code authorizes the CIRB to decide matters without an oral hearing and noted that CPKC itself had asked the CIRB to summarily dismiss the complaint “without a hearing” under subsection 167(3).
• The Court found that CPKC did not ask the CIRB for an opportunity to file additional submissions after Mr. Katz’s May 2024 reply letters and, relying on existing jurisprudence, held that CPKC could not raise a procedural fairness objection after the decision when it had not raised it at the earliest practical opportunity.
• The Court rejected CPKC’s argument that the CIRB’s conclusion that Mr. Katz was an employee and not a manager was unreasonable, and it dismissed the application for judicial review, reserving its right to award costs.

Background and facts
Canadian Pacific Railway Company o/a Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway (CPKC) sought judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) dated July 3, 2025 (2025 CIRB LD 5708). The CIRB found that Mr. Katz was an employee of CPKC, and not a manager, and that he was “unjustly dismissed by [CPKC] by way of a constructive dismissal.” The Federal Court of Appeal noted that the unjust dismissal provisions in Division XIV of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (the Code), would not be applicable if Mr. Katz were a manager, because subsection 167(3) provides that those provisions do not apply to a manager. As a result of certain changes to the terms and conditions of his employment, Mr. Katz filed a complaint under subsection 240(1) of the Code alleging unjust dismissal, and the complaint was referred to the CIRB.

Procedural steps before the CIRB
The CIRB wrote to the parties on February 14, 2024, advising that it was not obliged to hold an oral hearing and that it could make a decision based only on the documents on file after the deadlines, and stressing that it was important that the parties provide complete, accurate and detailed information and include all relevant documents. Mr. Katz provided particulars of his complaint on March 18, 2024. CPKC submitted its response on April 12, 2024, and Mr. Katz replied by letters dated May 29, 2024 and May 31, 2024. In its April 12, 2024 response, CPKC argued that Mr. Katz was a manager and submitted that the complaint must be summarily dismissed in accordance with subsection 167(3) of the Code “without a hearing,” on the basis that Mr. Katz’s recourse was more properly through the courts and not under the Code. The Court observed that there was nothing in the record to indicate that CPKC informed the CIRB that it was resiling from this position that the complaint be resolved without a hearing. On June 4, 2024, the CIRB advised the parties that “the submission process is now complete” and that no further submissions were requested, with the emphasis appearing in the original. The Court noted that this letter did not prohibit the parties from submitting a request to provide further submissions; it only indicated that the CIRB was not requesting any further submissions. The CIRB’s decision was rendered on July 3, 2025, over a year after that letter.

Issues raised on judicial review
In its application for judicial review, CPKC alleged that the CIRB violated its procedural fairness rights by not holding an oral hearing and by “depriving CPKC of a meaningful opportunity to respond to new arguments introduced late in the proceedings,” referring to Mr. Katz’s reply submissions concerning whether he was a manager. CPKC also advanced brief submissions that the CIRB’s decision that Mr. Katz was an employee and not a manager was unreasonable.

Court’s analysis on the oral hearing and written process
The Federal Court of Appeal referred to section 16.1 of the Code, which gives the CIRB the discretion to decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. In this matter, CPKC had specifically requested that the complaint be summarily dismissed “without a hearing” under subsection 167(3) of the Code. The Court found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that CPKC changed this position. Having submitted that the CIRB should dismiss Mr. Katz’s complaint without a hearing, the Court concluded there was no merit to CPKC’s argument that the CIRB violated its procedural rights by deciding the matter without an oral hearing.

Opportunity to respond to Mr. Katz’s reply and the requirement to raise fairness concerns early
The Court noted that, in his reply by letters dated May 29 and 31, 2024, Mr. Katz disputed the allegation that he was a manager. Regarding CPKC’s argument that it had no opportunity to respond to those reply submissions, the Court pointed out that there was nothing in the record to indicate that CPKC asked the CIRB for any right to file additional submissions or documents after Mr. Katz’s reply. The Court also observed that the only additional arguments that CPKC alleged it would have made related to Mr. Katz’s role with CPKC, information that, as his employer, CPKC would have known before Mr. Katz filed his reply. The Court stated that, having raised the issue of whether Mr. Katz was a manager, CPKC had the onus to prove that he was a manager and that, in its April 12, 2024 letter, CPKC provided few details about Mr. Katz’s role and responsibilities and did not refer to any caselaw. Citing Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. v. Canadian Media Guild, 2014 FCA 59, and related authorities, the Court reiterated that an applicant must raise an alleged procedural violation at the earliest practical opportunity and that a party cannot wait until it has lost before raising such a complaint. The Court stressed that there was plenty of time between the CIRB’s June 4, 2024 letter and the July 3, 2025 decision for CPKC to raise any concerns about Mr. Katz’s reply and to request an opportunity to provide additional submissions. Because CPKC did not raise its allegations of procedural unfairness before the CIRB, the Court held that CPKC could not succeed on that issue and found that there was no breach of procedural fairness by the CIRB in not granting CPKC an opportunity to make additional submissions that it had not requested.

Ruling and overall outcome
The Court stated that CPKC had not established any basis on which the Federal Court of Appeal should interfere with the CIRB’s decision that Mr. Katz was an employee who was not a manager. As a result, the Court held that the application for judicial review of the CIRB’s decision would be dismissed. The Court also stated that it would reserve its right to award costs. The decision does not specify any amount ordered, granted or awarded, and no exact amount can be determined from this judgment.