Steven Deans acquitted on criminal negligence charge in hedge-trimming electrocution
An Ottawa court has found a supervisor not guilty of criminal negligence causing death following the tragic 2023 workplace fatality of 20-year-old Nick Chenier, a worker with Best Green Hedges. The verdict, delivered in November 2025, has sparked renewed debate about the threshold for criminal prosecution in workplace safety cases and what it means for safety professionals and supervisors across Canada.
Nick Chenier died in May 2023 while trimming a hedge on Jean Park Road in Manotick, Ontario when the tool he was using contacted a 16,000-volt overhead power line. He succumbed to his injuries roughly an hour later. His supervisor, Steven Deans, was subsequently charged with criminal negligence causing death, a rare move in Canadian workplace safety law enforcement.
High bar for criminal negligence leads to acquittal
In his ruling, the judge determined that the Crown had not met the high burden of proof required for a criminal negligence conviction. The Crown had alleged that Deans failed to identify or warn Chenier of the nearby power line and thereby showed “reckless disregard” for his safety.
But according to the judge, the evidence did not establish that Deans’ actions met the legal threshold of “wanton and reckless disregard,” which is necessary for a criminal negligence finding. In fact, the judge noted uncertainty about what the standard of care for a reasonable supervisor would be under such circumstances — a point that proved pivotal in the case.
For Jennifer Chenier, Nick’s mother, the outcome was devastating. “I have waited for this day for two and a half years — it just didn’t go the way we hoped, unfortunately,” she told CTV News Ottawa. “If there were proper laws and legislations for this type of work, he would still be alive today.”
The defence, led by lawyer Mark Ertel, emphasized that Deans was personally close to the young worker. “This is a horrible, tragic case. Mr. Chenier was not just a colleague of Mr. Deans, but a good friend,” said Ertel. “He’s heartbroken at the loss of his friend.”
Implications for safety professionals
Legal experts say the case underscores the crucial distinction between criminal prosecutions and those under provincial occupational health and safety legislation.
“This case is a good example of the difference between a criminal case and a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act,” said Ryan Conlin, a Toronto-based OHS lawyer and partner at Stringer LLP. “Provincially, the supervisor would have had to prove that he took all reasonable precautions. But in this criminal case, the judge found the Crown couldn’t prove the supervisor’s actions rose to the level of wanton and reckless.”
Conlin also pointed to a key gap in the prosecution’s strategy. “They didn’t call an expert witness to establish what a reasonable supervisor would have done in this situation. That’s not required in an OHS case, but it can be critical in a criminal trial,” he said.
The Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development (MLITSD) had previously investigated the incident and laid five charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the company, its owner, and Deans. In April 2024, company owner Sheldon Best Green pleaded guilty to failing, as a director, to ensure compliance with the OHSA. The remaining charges were withdrawn in exchange for a $45,000 fine, with an additional victim surcharge bringing the total to roughly $56,000.
The trial marked the first time a supervisor in Ottawa was criminally charged in relation to a workplace fatality — a fact not lost on local labour advocates. “It sends a loud message to employers that they need to smarten up, they need to protect workers when it comes to health and safety,” said Sean McKenny, president of the Ottawa and District Labour Council.
Yet for OHS professionals, the case raises questions about where the line lies between administrative and criminal liability.
“There’s still only a relatively small number of criminal workplace safety cases in Canada,” said Conlin. “Many of those involve conduct so egregious that the wanton and reckless standard is easily met. But this case shows that line is not always clear — and that prosecutors are willing to test it.”
Conlin also noted a trend where criminal charges are more frequently being laid against individuals rather than corporations, which raises further implications for supervisors and safety leads. “It shows enforcement is getting more aggressive, and that prosecutors aren’t afraid to take cases to trial — even those that are far from slam dunks.”
While the verdict brings legal closure, for many in the safety profession and Chenier’s family, it leaves unresolved questions about accountability, clarity in legislation, and how far the law should go in protecting young workers on the job.
