Pain Deferred: The Heavy Cost of Negligence in Workplace Safety

Lady Justitia, goddess of truth, justice, balance, and order

As I get older I’m realizing pain is inevitable—you can pay now or pay later, with interest. Divorce is hard, maintaining a marriage and relating is hard.  Being out of shape is hard, staying in shape is hard.  Dealing with a workplace injury or fatality is hard, putting attention and resources to preventing possible (but currently fictitious) injuries and fatalities, also hard.  In life, we pick our hard.  Indulging in pleasures today results in the bill coming due tomorrow.  The notion that we can avoid pain is a lie, it simply boomerangs back. 

Pain can only be deferred, and that cost accumulates and compounds.  Pay now or pay later.  This principle applies everywhere, including workplace safety. Ignoring hazards may seem easier today, but the consequences can be catastrophic. A recent case in Toronto serves as a stark example.

Last week, a Toronto Supervisor, Milton Urgiles (47), was sentenced five-years in prison for criminal negligence causing death, pursuant to section 219 of the Criminal Code, following a 2020 dump-truck crash, which killed Denis Garant (53), a married father of a young son.

Section 219 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) Everyone is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Among a plethora of evidence, the court heard that:

Worker’s Concern was Ignored

Garant had been on the job a little more than a week when he sent his supervisor, Urgiles, a text, saying that the “the steering while turning with the wheels up cuts in and out like standard steering” referring the company’s dump truck he was operating.  Urgiles’ response ignored the concern and responded instead with the following day’s work site details.  At the end of the day, Urgiles briefly inspected the vehicle, but no other action was taken.

The day following the reported concern, the dump truck’s front left tire exploded, causing it to veer across the oncoming lane.  The truck went into a ditch and struck a tree. Mr. Garant died instantly.

Dump Truck Not Road-Worthy

The dump truck’s front tires were bald from three quarters of the inner tread to the outside, with no tread on them in these areas. Regulation 625 of the Highway Traffic Act states that a tire shall not have an exposed cord, however, the metal cords were exposed, and the driver’s side front tire had a hole on its inner side according to OPP Officer Millar testimony of his observations at the scene of the accident.  There was also an alignment issue with the truck, and it should not have been on the road based on the poor condition of the tire according to the testimony of a tire expert.

In her decision, Superior Court Madam Justice Mary Vallee found Urgiles guilty of criminal negligence.

Supervisor failed to take reasonable steps

Vallee outlined that the fault element of criminal negligence causing death is assessed by measuring the degree to which the accused’s conduct departed from that of a reasonable supervisor in the circumstances – it must be marked and substantial.  Her Honour found that Mr. Urgiles failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm, as evidenced by,  “Mr. Urgiles’ failure to have the Freightliner’s steering inspected by a mechanic, as he admitted he should have done, and his failure to ensure that its front tires met minimum standards for safe operation on the road before Mr. Garant began his day.”

Wanton & Reckless Disregard for Life & Safety

On the questions of whether Mr. Urgiles showed a wanton and reckless disregard for Mr. Garant’s life, Vallee concluded that, “Mr. Urgiles knew that tires can fail and that if they do, the consequences can be fatal. He knew that the proper function of a commercial vehicle’s steering is critical to the safety of the driver. Common sense dictates that losing control of a dump truck can be fatal and/or cause bodily harm.  Mr. Urgiles acknowledged this in his evidence when he stated that it is “every driver’s nightmare.”  He failed to notice that the front tires were practically bald. He directed Mr. Garant to drive the truck. He took no steps to ensure that the tire tread depth complied with Regulation 625 of the Highway Traffic Act when anyone looking at the tires could see that they were bald.  Mr. Urgiles’ omissions show a wanton and reckless disregard for Mr. Garant’s life.  His conduct was a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent supervisor in the circumstances.  He gave no thought to the obvious and serious risk and the need to take care. The risk of serious bodily harm was foreseeable.”

Persistent Negligence vs. a Single Judgment Lapse

Vallee cited case law from the 2009 Christmas Eve incident in Toronto where a supervisor was sentenced 42 months in jail after a swing stage collapsed and four workers fell to their deaths and found Urgiles’ responsibility more acute in Garant’s death because it represented a continual negligence in allowing the dump truck’s tires and alignment mechanism to degrade, rather than a one-off lapse of judgment the Toronto incident entailed.

While reading this case, I recalled a few supervisors and managers I have interviewed over the years, to determine if a due diligence defence exists.   Often, through that reactive process, those managers and supervisors were only then awakening to the weight of their responsibilities and what failing to meet them costs.  I sat with these supervisors and managers as the deferred pain came crashing through their front door demanding payment.  If I had had the opportunity to educate them earlier, perhaps the devastating event could have been prevented with diligent care and attention. 

Urgiles addressed the court and Garant’s family, saying, “May God forgive me once again.”  I have no doubt that with those I interviewed, when remorse was displayed, it was genuine.  However, up against the facts of what was not done that legally, reasonably should have been done, remorse means nothing.  The grim reaper of pain deferred takes what is due.  The time for mitigation has passed. 

In this case, the pain deferred, accumulated and compounded cost a life, a widowed wife, a son navigating life without a father, heartbroken family members and future dreams snuffed out prematurely.  On the Supervisor’s side, his deferred pain demands carrying the weight of moral culpability for the rest of his life, which will likely impact his physical and mental health and the health of his relationships.    Pain deferred is so immense, no one gets away unscathed. 

There is another way.  Choose being proactive: addressing worker concerns, conducting thorough training, inspections and task observations, getting away from your desk and talking with workers and being present.  Then, document your diligent efforts.  Yes, it’s hard.  Sometimes your efforts even appear inconsequential because you cannot see the lives and limbs you’ve saved.  (If you need a reminder, watch “It’s a Wonderful Life”).  But as this case reminds us, right action is worth it.  The choice is always ours: Do we act today, or do we wait for pain to come crashing in? Choose your hard wisely.

Feel free to connect at jennie@hogansafety.ca to book a free 30 minute discovery call to discuss your organization's unique needs.