Case In Point
Supervisor Found Criminally Negligent and Sentenced to Five Years in Prison Following a Vehicle Collision Resulting in Driver’s Death
Date: March 25, 2025
In the recent decision of R v. Urgiles, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found a supervisor at Ecuacan Excavating Inc. (Ecuacan) guilty of criminal negligence causing death after a fatal truck collision.
The collision occurred on September 22, 2020, fewer than three weeks into the worker’s employment with Ecuacan. The worker was driving a Freightliner dump truck when a witness noticed the vehicle “dog tracking,” or driving on a slight angle. Witnesses heard and saw the front left tire of the vehicle explode, blowing off the fender and barrelling the truck towards a tree. The collision resulted in the worker’s immediate death.
Critical Safety Warning Ignored
Evidence presented during the trial revealed that the deceased worker had texted his supervisor the evening before the collision, specifically reporting steering issues with the Freightliner. The supervisor’s reply did not address the steering issues.
Expert witnesses, including a collision reconstruction expert, testified that the front tires of the Freightliner were severely worn with inadequate tread depth and exposed metal cords—conditions that made the vehicle unsafe for road operation. Multiple experts emphasized that such tire wear would have been plainly visible upon inspection and would have developed over thousands of kilometres, not suddenly or overnight.
The Court’s Analysis
The supervisor was charged with criminal negligence under s. 219(a) of the Criminal Code, for a violation of s. 217.1 of the Criminal Code: anyone with authority to direct how another person performs work has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm.
The Court considered four questions:
- whether the supervisor had authority to direct the deceased’s work
- whether he failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm
- whether his conduct showed wanton or reckless disregard for the worker’s safety
- whether his negligence caused the worker’s death
The Court determined that the supervisor was responsible for day-to-day operations at Ecuacan and had clear supervisory authority over the deceased worker. His failure to have the truck properly inspected after receiving a report of steering problems constituted a breach of his duty. Justice Vallee of the Superior Court rejected the supervisor’s argument that the tire condition was unforeseeable, or that the tires could have worn down quickly on the day of the accident.
“Marked and Substantial Departure” from Reasonable Standard
The Court emphasized that the supervisor’s conduct showed “wanton and reckless disregard” for the worker’s life, representing a “marked and substantial departure” from what a reasonable supervisor would do in similar circumstances. The Court noted that this was an objectively foreseeable risk, and that the supervisor knew the importance of proper steering and tire maintenance for commercial vehicles yet took no steps to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
The Court ultimately found the supervisor guilty of criminal negligence causing death beyond a reasonable doubt. The supervisor was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on February 18, 2025, in a separate proceeding.
Key Takeaways for Supervisors
This decision serves as a critical reminder that supervisors’ actions—and inactions—regarding workplace safety are subject not only to the Occupational Health and Safety Act but also to the Criminal Code. The case highlights the importance that supervisors address reported safety concerns, and more importantly, take proactive steps to ensure vehicles and machinery are maintained in safe operating condition.
For assistance with any occupational health and safety matters, please contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©
