In a recent judgment [1], the Quebec Court of Appeal has made a decision on the criminal liability of an employer following a work-related accident that resulted in the death of an employee.This judgment revisits the criteria for criminal negligence through the lens of employer responsibilities, emphasizing the importance of adopting adequate preventive measures. It also reminds organizations of the necessity to rigorously adhere to safety standards to protect their employees.
Case Background and Relevant Facts
On September 11, 2012, a truck driver with 25 years of experience was involved in a fatal accident while driving a heavy container truck owned by the employer. Loaded near its full capacity, the vehicle overturned in a gravel downhill curve, a tragedy largely attributed to significant braking system failures.
In 2019, the Quebec Court[2] established the employer’s guilt for criminal negligence resulting in the truck driver’s death, primarily based on the vehicle’s lack of maintenance. This failure was attributed to the organization’s supervisor-mechanic, identified by the Court as a “senior executive” according to the Criminal Code. This designation is based on his roles and duties, including the supervision of the employer’s garage, with full authority over maintenance and required repairs, as well as cost management[3].
According to the Court, the level of negligence by the employer was deemed extremely serious, far beyond what would be expected from a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In this regard, the Court highlighted the existence of fourteen (14) major defects related to the braking system of the involved vehicle.
The employer was fined $300,000, with an additional compensatory fine of 15%, and was subjected to a three (3) year probation period with specific conditions.
Legislator’s Objective
In this case, the Court of Appeal outlines the historical background that led to the inclusion of a legal provision in the Criminal Code aimed at regulating the liability of organizations in cases of death and bodily injuries in the workplace.
In 2003, the adoption of the Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations), commonly known as Bill C-45, marked a turning point in Canadian legislation by establishing a specific legal framework for corporate criminal liability. This legislative evolution follows the wake of tragedies, including the Westray mine accident in 1992, which highlighted the shortcomings of the existing legal framework in addressing criminal negligence in workplaces.
The legislator’s goal was twofold : to enhance worker safety by imposing stricter obligations on organizations and their senior executives, and to allow for more effective criminal accountability in cases of serious injuries or deaths. This Act emphasizes the importance of due diligence, not only in daily operations but also in establishing risk prevention policies.
As a result, it establishes a clear legal framework for organizational criminal liability, particularly focusing on the role and actions of senior executives in accident prevention.
Scope of the “Senior Executive” Concept
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal adopts an inclusive and pragmatic interpretation of the “senior executive” concept in relation to organizational criminal liability. This analysis extends the traditional understanding of senior executives beyond titles to focus on actual functions and influence within the company.
The Court points out that the designation of “senior executive” is not limited to high hierarchical positions but extends to anyone with a significant role in decision-making or managing activities that could affect the safety and health of workers.
In practice, this means that liability can fall on individuals at various management levels, provided they have the authority to direct and influence safety practices. This interpretation aims to ensure that responsibility cannot be evaded through complex organizational structures, reflecting the legislator’s intent to promote safe work environments and hold key actors within organizations accountable.
In this case, the Court upheld the verdict of criminal negligence causing death, centered on the truck’s poor maintenance. It underscored the legal obligation for maintenance as well as organizational responsibility, highlighting the direct responsibility of senior executives in managing equipment maintenance and safety.
[1] 2023 QCCA 1032.
[2] 2019 QCCQ 7449.
[3] Note that the definition of “senior executive” under the Criminal Code is not the same as under the Act respecting labour standards.
