Steven Deans charged with criminal negligence in death of 20-year-old Nicholas Chenier
The criminal negligence trial of an Ottawa supervisor accused in the workplace death of a young landscaping employee has drawn attention from legal observers, who say the outcome could have lasting implications for defining supervisory responsibility in hazardous work environments.
The case centres around the death of 20-year-old Nicholas Chenier, a foreman with Best Green Hedges, who was electrocuted on May 5, 2023, when his electric hedge trimmer made contact with a 16,000-volt power line. Steven Deans, Chenier’s supervisor, has pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death.
According to legal expert Ryan Conlin, a partner at Stringer LLP specializing in occupational health and safety law, the trial highlights competing interpretations of workplace accountability and the role of frontline supervisors in ensuring safe work practices.
“The Court's decision could have significant implications in determining the threshold of negligence required for establishing criminal liability and the extent of responsibility expected from an individual supervisor,” says Conlin. “Notably, the employer in the case was not charged criminally.”
Conlin notes the defence maintains Chenier held a supervisory role and had undergone safety training, including instruction on working near high-voltage wires. As such, they argued that Chenier bore responsibility for conducting a risk assessment prior to starting the job.
Meanwhile, the Crown presented a starkly different view. As reported by the Ottawa Citizen, Crown prosecutor Anne Fitzpatrick argued that Deans “put Chenier’s life at risk” by failing to warn him of the obvious presence of overhead power lines on the property. Fitzpatrick asserted that Deans had a legal duty to evaluate the site, identify hazards, and take all reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm.
“This was not a close call,” Fitzpatrick told the court, adding that Deans should never have assigned Chenier to the job given the proximity of the hedge to the power line.
The prosecution further cited testimony from a second worker on the site, Marc-André Gosselin, who stated he had received no safety training when hired and was not made aware of the required distances from live electrical wires until after the incident occurred.
In contrast, defence lawyer Mark Ertel argued that Deans was “a supervisor, not the supervisor” and that Chenier — as the foreman — was responsible for onsite safety. Ertel pointed to Chenier’s prior training and his authority to stop work if he deemed conditions unsafe.
“The way the company was organized, he was in charge of safety on the job site,” Ertel said, describing Deans’s omission to note the power line on the job sheet as “an error — not negligence.”
Ertel challenged the Crown’s assertion that Deans displayed a “marked and substantial departure” from reasonable conduct, suggesting instead that there was no clear industry standard or regulation governing such hedge-trimming operations. He urged the court not to “manufacture a standard” where none existed.
Fitzpatrick countered in rebuttal that negligence findings do not require an explicit standard of care and emphasized that working within a prohibited distance from a high-voltage line constitutes a clear and avoidable breach of safety.
Justice John MacFarlane is expected to deliver his decision on November 18.
As legal experts await the verdict, Conlin emphasized the broader significance of the ruling.
“The outcome may provide further clarity on how courts view the delegation of safety responsibilities — particularly in workplaces where informal supervisory structures exist,” he said. “This case could redefine what is expected of those in mid-level roles when it comes to anticipating and controlling life-threatening hazards.”
