Criminal Negligence Causing Death

Criminal negligence causing death is one of the most serious negligence-based offences in Canadian criminal law. Classified as an indictable offence under Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Code 1150 and set out in Section 220 of the Criminal Code, it addresses situations where someone’s wanton or reckless disregard for human life causes another person’s death. Unlike murder, it does not require an intention to kill, but it does require a very serious breach of a legal duty. Because of its gravity, criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and a mandatory minimum of four years where a firearm is involved.

The Legal Definition

Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence.

On its face, this definition in Section 220 looks simple, but it relies heavily on the broader definition of “criminal negligence” in Section 219 of the Criminal Code and on other duty-creating provisions, such as Sections 216 and 217.1. In plain terms, a person commits criminal negligence where, by doing something or by failing to do something they are legally required to do, they show a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. When that criminal negligence actually results in a death, the offence becomes criminal negligence causing death.

Canadian courts have interpreted this standard to mean that the accused’s conduct must amount to a “marked and substantial departure” from what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the same circumstances. It is not enough that the person made a mistake, was merely careless, or was simply negligent in the civil sense. The conduct must fall far below what society expects, in a way that demonstrates serious indifference to human life or safety. Importantly, the duty that is breached must be a legal duty — one imposed by statute (for example, occupational health and safety laws, specific Criminal Code duties like Section 217.1 for supervisors, or Section 216 for medical practitioners) or by common law — not merely a moral or informal expectation.

Penalties & Sentencing Framework

• Type of offence: Indictable only (no summary option; not hybrid).
• Maximum penalty: Life imprisonment.
• Mandatory minimum: 4 years imprisonment if a firearm is used in the commission of the offence.
• Mandatory minimum (no firearm): None. Courts have full discretion above zero, up to life.

Because criminal negligence causing death is indictable-only, it must proceed under full indictable procedures. The accused typically has the right to elect trial by judge and jury in Superior Court, the Crown must meet higher procedural standards, and the case attracts the serious collateral consequences associated with major violent or homicide-related convictions. There is no option for the Crown to proceed summarily to reduce the procedural or sentencing exposure.

Although life imprisonment is available, sentences vary widely depending on the facts. Canadian sentencing law, particularly Sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, requires that any sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Courts emphasize denunciation and deterrence in criminal negligence causing death, especially in workplace, driving, or medical contexts where the message to the broader public (and to organizations) is seen as crucial. Factors such as the extent of the risk created, prior warnings about hazards, the vulnerability of the victim, any pattern of safety violations, and post-offence conduct (cooperation, remorse, remedial steps) all influence the sentence.

The mandatory minimum of four years applies where a firearm is used in committing criminal negligence causing death. This significantly curtails judicial discretion: even if there are strong mitigating factors (such as a lack of record, genuine remorse, or unusual personal circumstances), the court cannot go below four years if the use of a firearm is established. By contrast, where no firearm is involved, there is no statutory floor, and courts may impose anything from a non-custodial sentence in the rarest and least blameworthy cases, up to a lengthy penitentiary term where the negligence is egregious. The presence of multiple deaths, systemic safety failures, or gross indifference to clearly known risks will push sentences upwards, sometimes towards double-digit penitentiary terms, even though life sentences are less common in practice.

Common Defenses

• Challenging the breach of legal duty

  One of the core elements of criminal negligence causing death is the existence and breach of a legal duty. A common defence strategy is to argue that no such legal duty existed in the circumstances, or that the Crown has overstated its scope. For example, a supervisor charged under Section 220 in a workplace scenario may argue that they did not “undertake, or have the authority to direct, how another person does work or performs a task” within the meaning of Section 217.1, or that their role was advisory rather than supervisory. Alternatively, the defence may admit that a duty existed, but argue that the specific conduct alleged by the Crown fell outside that duty (e.g., a hazard that was not reasonably foreseeable or not part of the accused’s area of control). If the Crown cannot prove a legally recognized duty, or cannot show that the accused actually breached that duty, the offence fails.

• Arguing the conduct was not a marked and substantial departure

  The “marked and substantial departure” test is often the central battleground. The defence may concede some level of negligence but argue that it did not cross the high threshold required for criminal conviction. This involves framing the accused’s behaviour as an error of judgment, momentary lapse, or less serious departure from the reasonable person standard. Expert evidence (for instance, about usual industry practices, safety norms, or professional standards) can be used to show that what the accused did, although imperfect, was not so far below the standard that it should be labelled criminal. Because this standard is objective, the defence focuses on what a reasonably prudent person in the same situation — with the same information and constraints at the time — might realistically have done, and argues that the accused’s conduct was within or near that range.

• Defences like necessity or insanity

  General criminal law defences may apply to criminal negligence causing death. The common law defence of necessity is sometimes raised where the accused claims they were forced, by an imminent peril and absence of a reasonable legal alternative, to take a course of action that inadvertently caused death (for example, choosing between two dangerous options in an emergency). Courts apply this defence very narrowly, especially in homicide-related cases, and require that the harm avoided be greater than the harm caused. The mental disorder (insanity) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code can also apply. If, at the time of the act or omission, the accused was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their conduct or of knowing that it was wrong, they may be found not criminally responsible (NCR). In that case, the person is not acquitted outright but is dealt with through the provincial/territorial review board system rather than by traditional sentencing.

• Challenging causation

  Even where duty, breach, and a marked and substantial departure are proven, the Crown must still establish that the accused’s criminal negligence caused the death. The defence can argue that the fatal outcome was due to an independent intervening event, pre-existing condition, or other factor that breaks the chain of causation. For example, in a complex workplace or medical setting, the defence might point to severe, unexpected medical complications or the unforeseeable conduct of a third party as the real legal cause of death. While Section 224 of the Criminal Code provides that a person causes death even if it might have been prevented by proper means, causation remains a live issue: the negligent act or omission must still be a significant contributing cause of death in a legal sense. If the defence can raise a reasonable doubt on causation, an acquittal must follow.

Real-World Example

Consider a construction supervisor who is clearly responsible for onsite safety and is aware that a particular scaffolding system is outdated, unstable, and does not meet basic regulatory requirements. Workers have repeatedly raised concerns, and a recent internal report recommended immediate replacement. Nonetheless, the supervisor allows work to continue at height without implementing any interim safety measures or closing the area. The scaffolding collapses, and a worker falls and dies.

In this scenario, the law would examine whether the supervisor had a legal duty under Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code and applicable workplace safety legislation to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm. The known hazard, prior warnings, and failure to act could be seen as a breach of that duty. A court would then assess whether allowing work to continue amounted to a marked and substantial departure from what a reasonably prudent supervisor would have done — for example, by comparing the supervisor’s conduct to industry standards and statutory requirements. If that standard is met and the collapse is found to be a significant contributing cause of the worker’s death, the supervisor could be convicted of criminal negligence causing death. Police investigators would collect safety records, witness statements, and expert opinions on proper safety practices, and prosecutors would present this evidence to show wanton or reckless disregard for life.

Record Suspensions (Pardons)

Because criminal negligence causing death is an indictable offence of the highest seriousness, it has substantial long-term consequences on a person’s criminal record. Under current Parole Board of Canada policies and record suspension legislation, eligibility for a record suspension for this type of indictable offence generally begins 10 years after completion of the entire sentence, including imprisonment, probation, and any other court orders. This waiting period reflects the gravity of homicide-related offences and the public safety considerations involved. A record suspension is not automatic: the applicant must demonstrate sustained law-abiding behaviour, stability, and rehabilitation. Given the severe nature of criminal negligence causing death, the Board will scrutinize factors such as the circumstances of the offence, the impact on victims, any ongoing risk to the public, and evidence of responsibility and remorse before deciding whether to grant the suspension.

Related Violations

• Manslaughter
• Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm
• Impaired Driving Causing Death