Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A director of operations entered a guilty plea on behalf of the company without authorization from the president.

• The employer was accused of violating occupational health and safety rules by failing to shore excavation walls properly.

• The legal issue centered on whether the guilty plea was valid and binding on the company under Quebec’s penal procedure rules.

• The court found that although the director had authority under law, the plea was not voluntary or informed.

• The president demonstrated by sworn testimony that the plea was unauthorized and contrary to the company’s intent.

• The court granted the request to change the plea to not guilty and ordered a full trial.

Context and origin of the proceedings

The case arose from a charge laid against Groupe Module Construction Inc. by Quebec’s CNESST for an alleged safety violation on a construction site. Specifically, the company was accused of failing to properly shore the walls of a trench, a contravention of Quebec’s Act respecting occupational health and safety. The alleged infraction involved the use of inadequate materials and failure to follow an engineer’s specifications. On January 10, 2025, a guilty plea was entered on behalf of the company by its director of operations, accompanied by an intention to contest the harsher penalty sought by the CNESST.

Request to change plea and legal challenge

On April 22, 2025, the company filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and replace it with a plea of not guilty. The president of Groupe Module testified that he had never authorized the director of operations to plead guilty on behalf of the company and was unaware the plea had been entered. The company argued that it had always intended to defend the charge and had not delegated authority to anyone else to enter a plea. In response, the CNESST contended that under the Code of Penal Procedure, the director qualified as a “person in a similar function” and thus had legal authority to act on the company’s behalf.

Judicial analysis on corporate authority and voluntariness

The court confirmed that under Article 192 of the Code of Penal Procedure, a corporation may act through its directors or persons in similar roles. In this case, the director of operations did have legal standing to represent the company, as he was in charge of site operations and managed staff. However, that did not resolve the deeper issue of whether the plea was valid. A valid guilty plea must be voluntary, informed, and deliberate.

Here, the judge found that the plea was not made with informed consent. The president had no knowledge of the CNESST infraction, no opportunity to approve the decision, and maintained consistent internal protocols that reserved such decisions solely to himself. The judge concluded the plea was not voluntary and that it would be unjust to treat it as binding.

Implications and conclusion

The court noted that the CNESST would suffer no prejudice by allowing the change of plea. The trial had not yet been held, and no final judgment had been rendered. Given the significant regulatory and reputational consequences of a guilty finding for a company in a regulated industry, the court emphasized the need for fairness. It further held that a company should not be deprived of its right to a defence because of an unauthorized procedural error by an employee.

The court granted the motion, set aside the previous guilty plea, entered a plea of not guilty, and ordered the matter to proceed to trial. No costs were awarded.