Canada's new era of criminal accountability in workplace safety
Canada’s legal landscape around occupational health and safety (OHS) is shifting dramatically. Legal experts and safety professionals alike are observing a rising trend: frontline supervisors and small business owners increasingly face criminal charges following serious workplace incidents.
At the Canadian Safety Summit held in Brampton, Ontario last month, three prominent legal minds delivered a stark message: the era of rare criminal enforcement is over.
“Criminal prosecutions have been increasing substantially in recent years,” said Ryan Conlin, partner at Stringer LLP and a veteran OHS lawyer who has appeared in courts across Canada. “Jail is not only on the table, but we’re talking prison time.”
Conlin outlined how Canadian courts now impose federal prison sentences—those exceeding two years—for violations deemed criminally negligent under Bill C-45, an amendment to the Criminal Code passed in 2004. While the legislation aimed to hold corporations and executives accountable, prosecutors have more often targeted supervisors.
That trend can be traced back to the landmark case of R. v. Kazenelson, where a construction site supervisor received a 3.5-year sentence after a swing stage collapse killed four workers in Toronto on Christmas Eve 2009. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, emphasizing deterrence.
“This was necessary… even the absence of a criminal record didn’t matter,” said Conlin. “Most defendants in these cases are not regulars in the court system.”
More recently, the harshest sentence for a criminal negligence causing death conviction was given to Milton Urgiles. He received five years in prison after failing to perform maintenance on a dump truck he owned even after a worker flagged a problem with the steering. That worker died in a crash the next day.
“If you have a safety-equipped [vehicle] in such horrid condition, it’s brought to your attention, and you do nothing about it, I would say that’s the textbook definition of criminal negligence,” said Conlin.
Carissa Tanzola, partner at Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP, agrees with Conlin that most supervisors and small business owners facing charges are unfamiliar with criminal court. “More and more, I think you see pressure,” she said. “When you get to the level where it’s a marked and substantial departure from what you might expect in a workplace, that’s where you’re going to see criminal liability.”
She pointed to the role of public perception, amplified by media coverage and activist campaigns. “Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, ‘Guess what I’m going to do today’—yet those are the stories that get picked up.”
According to Jeremy Warning, partner at Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP, supervisors may not even realize when they are under criminal investigation. “Are the police continuing to investigate? Are they trying to meet with people? Has there been a production order?” he asked. “That’s how you know. They’re not obligated to tell you.”
Warning noted that police, often the first on the scene, have become more engaged with criminal enforcement. Unlike previous years when officers routinely deferred to the Ministry of Labour, some now remain involved to gather evidence and evaluate negligence.
For employers and safety professionals, the implications are significant. Corporate policies alone may not protect individuals on the ground. Supervisors must understand their responsibilities, receive adequate training, and enforce safety rules consistently.
The message from the Summit was clear: the legal threshold for criminal negligence remains high, but the consequences are steeper than ever. With prison terms becoming precedent and oversight intensifying, the onus is now on organizations to reinforce the internal responsibility system—and ensure supervisors are not left exposed.
