Construction sites are among the most dangerous workplaces in Canada, requiring strict adherence to safety regulations to prevent accidents and fatalities.
Site supervisors play a critical role in ensuring that safety protocols are followed. However, a recent decision in R. v. Urgiles, 2024 ONSC 3382 [“Urgiles”] signals a growing willingness by Canadian courts to hold supervisors criminally liable for negligence leading to worker deaths.
In what is now the harshest sentence for workplace negligence in Canadian history, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sentenced Milton Urgiles, a supervisor who was found to be extensively involved in operating the company for which they both worked, to five years in prison for criminal negligence causing death under section 219(1) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Urgiles, 2025 ONSC 845), Urgiles sets a new precedent that construction supervisors who fail to address workplace hazards, may face significant personal legal consequences, including incarceration.
Background on Urgiles
On September 22, 2020, Denis Garant, a driver for Ecuacan Excavating Inc., was killed in a fatal accident when the Freightliner dump truck he was driving suffered a front tire explosion. The explosion caused the truck to veer off the road, crash into a ditch, and strike a tree. Garant died instantly.
The court found that Mr. Urgiles, Garant’s supervisor, failed to take necessary safety precautions despite clear warnings about the vehicle’s dangerous condition. On the day before the accident, Garant had informed Urgiles that the truck’s steering “cut in and out”.[1] Rather than having the truck inspected, Urgiles directed Garant to continue driving it. Moreover, the truck’s front tires were bald, and failed to meet the legal minimum tread depth.
The court ruled that Urgiles’ failure to act on these warnings constituted a marked and substantial departure from what a reasonable supervisor would have done in the same circumstances, satisfying both the actus reus and mens rea for criminal negligence causing death.
Legal Analysis
Crimes are comprised of two elements; the physical and the mental. For the physical component of criminal negligence causing death, under section 219(1) of the Criminal Code, the supervisor’s conduct does not need to be deliberate or wilful; the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the supervisor has the authority to direct the employee to perform certain tasks associated with the job, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent their bodily harm, and showed a “wanton and reckless disregard” for the employee’s life and safety. In the present case, Mr. Urgiles was found not to have taken such steps to prevent harm through his failure to have the steering capabilities of Mr. Garant’s vehicle inspected by a mechanic to have the reported steering issues assessed, and to ensure its front tires met the minimum standards for safe use on the road before Mr. Garant began his day.[2]
From a mental standpoint, for a finding of guilt under section 219(1), the trier of fact will step into the shoes of the supervisor by considering the facts at the time of the crash, the supervisor’s perception of those facts, and assess (in that context) whether their conduct represented a “marked and substantial departure” from what would be reasonable in those circumstances.[3] In the case at bar, Urgiles’ failure to do what a reasonable supervisor would do in the same circumstance was demonstrated by his failure to familiarize himself with foreseeable risks, namely the fact that the tires were 1) overloaded with dirt (which led to an uneven vehicle weight distribution); and 2) had minimal tread (which caused the tire explosion on the road), and that those conditions could prove to be fatal to his driver.[4] The Crown’s collision reconstruction and forensic mechanic expert testified that the minimal tread on the tires, and corresponding safety risk, would be apparent to anyone walking towards or around the vehicle.[5]
Practical Guidance
Urgiles most directly applies to persons covered under the definition of a “supervisor” under section 1 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, which is “a person who has charge of a workplace or authority over a worker”.[6]
As a consequence of section 27(1), which mandates supervisors to ensure that their workers follow the required safety and protective procedures, supervisors are also required to “advise a worker of the existence of any potential or actual danger to the health or safety of the worker of which the supervisor is aware, and take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.[7]
Urgiles reflects the need for supervisors to, rather than being held to the standard of an expert on safety, take a more proactive approach, familiarizing themselves with the granular safety issues posed by the requirements of their workers’ tasks. There is no room for wilful blindness. Practically, this means supervisors must ensure that company equipment is properly maintained, regularly inspected for safety hazards, and that workers are adequately trained to recognize and report potential dangers. Failure to fulfill these duties, even if not the direct cause of harm, can still result in liability if the supervisor’s negligence is “at least a contributing cause” to a workplace accident; the act or omission does not need to be the most proximate, primary or even sole cause of death for liability under section 219(1) to follow.[8]
[1] R v Urgiles, 2024 ONSC 3382 [“Urgiles”] at para 69.
[4] Ibid at paras 166 and 167.
[6] Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 1.
[7] Ibid, section 27(1) and (2).
The author would like to thank our Student-at-Law, James Moskowski, for his assistance in writing this blog.