In R v Urgiles [Urgiles], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”) convicted a supervisor of criminal negligence causing death after he directed a worker to continue operating a visibly unsafe truck that later crashed, killing the driver instantly. The ONSC sentenced the supervisor to five years in prison.  

Background

The supervisor was extensively involved in running a commercial trucking business and directly supervised the deceased driver, who had only recently begun his employment. The day before the collision, the driver sent a text message reporting a serious steering issue. The supervisor provided inconsistent evidence as to whether and to what level he checked the steering, but maintained he believed the truck was fine to drive. The supervisor was not qualified to inspect trucks for safety. Despite this, he instructed the driver to report to work the following morning.

While travelling on the highway, the truck’s left front tire blew out. Expert evidence later confirmed the tires were nearly bald and unfit for the road. The vehicle crossed into oncoming traffic, entered a ditch, and struck a tree, killing the driver instantly. The evidence established that the tire condition had developed over time and would have been apparent on reasonable inspection.

The ONSC also heard evidence of broader compliance failures. The company had no structured record-keeping system, logbooks were not properly maintained, and there were no basic employment records for the driver.

The Decision

The central issue at sentencing was whether a community-based sanction was appropriate. The ONSC concluded that a significant custodial sentence was required to meet the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence.

In assessing moral blameworthiness, the ONSC emphasized that this was not a momentary lapse. The unsafe condition of the truck resulted from an ongoing course of negligent conduct, and the supervisor knowingly directed the driver to continue working despite recognizing that the vehicle required mechanical attention. The ONCA found that, had the truck been properly inspected, the fatal collision would not have occurred.

The supervisor’s prior safety record and the company’s systemic compliance failures were treated as significant aggravating factors. The ONSC also rejected any suggestion that responsibility could shift to the worker for failing to refuse unsafe work, reaffirming that the legal duty rests with those who direct the work.

Although the supervisor had no criminal record and expressed remorse, these factors were outweighed by the gravity of the offence and the need to send a clear deterrent message. As such, the ONSC sentenced the supervisor to serve five years in prison.

Key Takeaways

Supervisory Responsibility is Personal

Urgiles confirms that liability does not end at the organizational level. Supervisors can face criminal charges, including imprisonment, for workplace safety failures amounting to criminal negligence. While employers are familiar with potential liability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act [OHSA], employers should understand that serious safety issues can result in criminal negligence, where liability can be greater than penalties under OHSA.

Obvious Hazards Cannot be Ignored

Courts will not accept claims of ignorance where equipment defects are visible or long-standing. Employers need proactive inspection and maintenance systems and must ensure they are consistently followed in practice.

Employers Must Act on Safety Concerns

Employers cannot rely on workers to identify or refuse unsafe work to discharge their legal obligations. Safety complaints must be treated as urgent, with a clear, documented response by supervisors.

Compliance and Record-Keeping Matter

The absence of basic employment, licensing, and logbook records was treated as evidence of systemic non-compliance, not an administrative oversight. Employers should ensure that qualification, maintenance, and inspection documentation is complete, accurate, and current.

This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.

This information is not intended as legal advice.