Ontario supervisor sentenced to five years in prison for workplace fatality
An Ontario court has sentenced 47-year-old Milton Urgiles to five years in prison for criminal negligence causing death. The case, which stems from a September 2020 dump truck crash near Alliston, Ontario, highlights the severe legal consequences for supervisors who fail to address workplace safety concerns. Legal experts suggest the sentence could reflect a broader move by the courts toward harsher penalties in workplace negligence cases.
On September 21, 2020, 53-year-old Denis Garant, a dump truck driver employed by a company owned by Urgiles’ common law partner, reported steering issues with his vehicle. In a text message to Urgiles, he wrote that the "steering cuts in and out." Instead of taking the truck out of service or arranging for a mechanic to inspect it, Urgiles ignored the warning and provided Garant with details for the next day's work.
The following day, while driving near Alliston, Ontario, Garant lost control of the truck. The vehicle veered off the road, crossed into oncoming traffic, and crashed into a tree. Garant was killed instantly. At the time of the crash, he had only been working for the company for just over a week.
A tougher legal stance?
Urgiles’ sentencing is among the harshest in Canadian history for workplace negligence. Previously, the most severe penalty was a three-and-a-half-year sentence handed down in the Kazenelson case, where a construction site supervisor was convicted after four workers fell to their deaths due to unsafe scaffolding.
Jeremy Warning, a partner at Mathews Dinsdale & Clark, suggests the five-year sentence could represent a shift in how courts handle criminal negligence cases.
"The high-water mark before this was Kazenelson, which resulted in three and a half years for a quadruple fatality. Now we’re seeing five years for a single fatality. This could indicate that courts are stepping up sentencing for criminal negligence causing death."
However, Warning cautions against calling it a trend just yet, noting workplace negligence prosecutions remain relatively rare. He says supervisors who ignore safety concerns are putting themselves in serious legal jeopardy.
"If you're made aware of a safety concern, you must address it properly," he says. "In this case, Urgiles didn’t investigate a clear complaint about steering issues. If a supervisor lacks the expertise to assess a safety problem, they must ensure someone qualified does the inspection."
No leniency for negligence
The sentencing hearing at the Barrie courthouse saw the Crown seeking a six-year sentence, while Urgiles’ defense lawyer, Alonzo Abbey, argued for a two-year conditional sentence that would have allowed Urgiles to serve his time under house arrest. The court swiftly rejected the request for leniency.
Superior Court Justice Mary Vallee made it clear that a significant prison term was necessary. In his final statement, delivered through a Spanish interpreter, Urgiles expressed remorse, saying:
"Once again, I ask for everyone's forgiveness. May God forgive me."
However, legal experts say the severity of the case left little room for mercy.
"There was no chance the court was going to accept a conditional sentence," says Ryan Conlin, partner at Stringer LLP. "This case sets a precedent—if you're found guilty of gross negligence, you're looking at a long prison term. House arrest is not going to be an option."
Conlin also points out the Westray Law, which amended the Criminal Code in 2004 to impose harsher penalties for workplace negligence, was originally intended to hold senior management accountable. However, most prosecutions have targeted supervisors rather than company owners.
Warning for employers and supervisors
Beyond the courtroom, this case is a wake-up call for workplace safety leaders.
Graeme Hooper, associate counsel at Mitha Law Group, took to LinkedIn to stress the legal responsibility of supervisors:
"As examples of these criminal negligence cases mount, a common theme emerges: poorly trained, ill-prepared people put into supervisory roles with disastrous results—for both their workers and themselves."
Hooper’s warning is blunt: supervisors who ignore safety risks are not just failing their employees—they are putting themselves at risk of criminal prosecution.
"Employers: train and empower your supervisors. Supervisors: know and fulfill your obligations."
Conlin agrees that this case could mark a turning point in workplace safety enforcement.
"I think what this case may show is that lengthy jail terms will become the norm, rather than the exception, for individuals convicted in criminal negligence cases."
Future of workplace safety enforcement
For employers, the message from this case is clear: workplace safety policies must be robust, and supervisors must take their legal obligations seriously.
"Supervisors need to understand that they are legally responsible for ensuring worker safety," Warning says. "If they fail to act on clear safety warnings, the consequences could be severe—not just for their workers, but for themselves."
With harsher sentences on the rise, courts are making it clear that workplace negligence is not just a regulatory issue—it’s a criminal offense. Employers and supervisors who fail to prioritize safety may find themselves not just facing fines, but behind bars.
