ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TECHNICORE UNDERGROUND INC. and Joseph DiMillo
Before Justice P.T. O’Marra
Heard on January 7, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on January 27, 2026
Gregory Hendry counsel for the Crown
Scott K. Fenton ……………….…….. counsel for the defendant Technicore Underground Inc.
Brandon Anand Chung ……………………..…….. counsel for the defendant Joseph DiMillo
David McCaskill …….…….…………………………….…….. counsel for the Ministry of Labour
P.T. O’MARRA, J.:
Introduction
1Before I address my reasons for sentence in this matter, I want to speak directly to the family and friends of Mr. Silva. I want to acknowledge the profound loss that has brought us here. Joaquim, or Jack, Silva was not merely a name in these proceedings; he was a husband, a father, a grandfather, a godfather, and a friend. He was a man who left his home on December 2, 2022, with words that now carry a deep and heartbreaking weight: “It’s going to be a cold day today.” Those were his last words to his wife before he left for work, unaware that he would not return.
2No sentence I impose today or words that I express from the Bench can erase the pain of losing someone so cherished. The law can hold people accountable, but it cannot restore the warmth of his presence, the sound of his laughter, or the comfort of his love.
3As Helen Keller once said:
What we have once enjoyed deeply we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part of us.
May these words remind you that Mr. Silva’s love and spirit remain with you as you navigate this unimaginable grief.
4Today, as we examine the circumstances that led to this tragedy, we do so with full recognition that behind every fact and legal principle stands a family forever changed. Please know that this Court regards Mr. Silva as more than a victim of an incident; he was a person whose life mattered deeply. His role as a father, husband, grandfather, godfather, and friend speaks to the bonds he created and the legacy he leaves behind.
5This case also serves as a solemn reminder of the importance of workplace safety. Every worker has the right to return home safely at the end of the day. That right is not negotiable; it is a cornerstone of our law and our shared humanity. When safety is compromised, lives are shattered, families are broken, and communities grieve.
6And as we turn to justice, let us remember the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:
Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.
7Today’s sentence is not only about accountability for what happened, but it is also about reaffirming the principle that safety and justice are inseparable. When employers fail in their duty, the law must speak clearly: lives matter, and negligence has consequences.
8I extend my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Silva’s family.
Background
9This case stems from a tragic workplace fatality on December 2, 2022, during the Burnhamthorpe Water Project in Mississauga. The accused are Technicore Underground Inc. (Technicore), a leading tunnelling contractor, and Joseph DiMillo, a senior officer and supervisor at Technicore. The incident claimed the life of Mr. Silva, a labourer on the project.
10At the time of the offence, Technicore was one of the largest tunnelling services contractors in Canada and employed over 100 workers. Technicore is headquartered in Newmarket.
11On January 21, 2021, a Technicore employee tragically died at a worksite while working on the same project at a different location within Peel Region. On August 26, 2022, Technicore acknowledged its failure to comply with section 108 of Ontario Regulation 213/91, in violation of section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). As a result, Technicore was fined.
12This is a matter that I extensively pre-tried with counsel.
13On January 7, 2026, Technicore pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death to Mr. Silva, contrary to s. 220(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code), and Mr. DiMillo has pleaded guilty to failing, as a supervisor, to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to s. 27(2)(c) of the OHSA.
Summary of Facts
14The guilty pleas were supported by an agreed statement of facts, which I will summarize.
15Technicore was engaged in the Burnhamthorpe Water Project in Mississauga, a major municipal infrastructure undertaking involving live watermains and deep below‑grade chambers. The contract had a total value of $134,000,000. The specific worksite was located at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Hurontario Street, within a multi‑compartment underground chamber. The chamber included the Region of Peel’s main water system and a bypass system, with flanged connections and valves, to maintain service during construction activities. The bypass line had developed a leak at a flange gasket and required remedial work.
16On the day before the incident, Joseph DiMillo advised the crew to address the leak on the bypass line when time permitted. On December 2, 2022, the crew attended the chamber to perform the remedial work. The task involved returning to the location and performing repair work at depth within the chamber environment.
17The crew commenced repair operations at the underground location. During the course of this effort, a destabilization occurred within the chamber’s water conveyance arrangement, culminating in a valve rupture and rapid flooding of the subterranean space. The flooding propagated quickly through the interconnected compartments, creating a sudden and life-threatening environment for workers located below grade.
18At the material time, Mr. Silva had descended into a smaller compartment approximately 20.9 metres below ground level to engage with the repair activity. When the chamber flooded, Mr. Silva becametrapped and was unable to escape. The conditions in the confined compartment, combined with the speed and volume of flooding, resulted in fatal drowning with multiple blunt force trauma.
19The facts demonstrate multiple deficiencies in safety controls and preparedness at the time of the work. Workers on site did not have full‑body harnesses suitable for vertical retrieval; the available lifelines were inadequate for rescue in a deep chamber; there was no safety cage to facilitate controlled movement or emergency extraction; and no effective communication devices were deployed to maintain reliable contact between surface and below‑grade personnel. In addition, Mr. Silva had not received proper emergency rescue training tailored to deep, confined, or flooded environments. These failings were inconsistent with Technicore’s own internal safety policies and procedures and reflected a significant lapse in planning and safety management for high‑risk subterranean work.
20The work proceeded without a Field Level Hazard Assessment (FLHA) appropriate to the chamber's depth, configuration, and hydraulically energized environment. A formally appointed supervisor was not present on site when the task was undertaken. These supervisory and planning gaps undermined the identification and control of hazards that were inherent in the location and the repair activity.
21Technicore acknowledged that the collective safety failures and omissions were causally connected to Mr. Silva’s death and reflected a wanton or reckless disregard for worker safety.
22Mr. DiMillo, in his capacity as manager and supervisor, acknowledged that he failed to take all reasonable precautions required in the circumstances to protect a worker.
23On January 7, 2026, sentencing submissions were made regarding the proposed sentence. Counsel for all the parties presented a joint submission, which I have carefully considered.
24The proposed sentence is as follows: Technicore will pay a fine of $225,000, payable in two installments of $112,500 within 12 and 18 months, pursuant to section 735(1.1) (c) of the Code. Technicore will also make restitution of $200,000 to Bernadette Silva, $100,000 of which was paid by Technicore today with the remaining $100,000 to be paid within 60 days, pursuant to sections 739.2 and 740(b) of the Code, and pay a victim fine surcharge of $67,500 under section 737(4). Joseph DiMillo will pay a $50,000 fine and a 25% victim fine surcharge under the Provincial Offences Act.
25These are my reasons for finding that the joint sentence is fit and appropriate for Technicore and Joseph DiMillo.
The victim impact:
26Victim impact statements from Bernadette Silva, his wife, Stephanie Silva, his daughter, and his godson, Lucas Carneiro, were received and read. Their statements convey the profound and enduring human consequences of Mr. Silva’s death on his immediate family and close kin.
27For Mrs. Bernadette Silva, the loss of her husband of 32 years has been life‑altering. She describes a pervasive grief and a sense of incompleteness that touches every facet of her daily life. Occasions once marked by joy, family birthdays, holidays, and anniversaries, are now experienced as painful reminders of absence. The psychological distress has manifested physically, including high blood pressure managed with medication and progressive macular degeneration that she links to the sustained stress following her husband’s death. Economically and practically, she has lost the household support and skills he provided and now relies on compensation and outside services to accomplish tasks he previously undertook. Her statement underscores a heightened and continuing anxiety: she fears being alone, suffers panic when loved ones are late, and experiences recurrent panic attacks, reflecting a lasting erosion of personal security.
28Ms. Stephanie Silva similarly details a fundamental reordering of her life. She portrayed her father as the centre of family warmth, conversation, and community service, and describes the silence left in his wake as overwhelming. Once outgoing and vibrant, she has withdrawn from social engagement and finds ordinary interactions exhausting because they require her to mask persistent grief. Professionally, she has been unable to return to her work as a social worker while she continues to process trauma and loss. The stress has had physical repercussions: a recurrence of severe migraines following brain surgery in 2018, now monitored to guard against relapse. Her statement also records a pronounced and persistent fear for loved ones employed in construction, triggered whenever news of industrial accidents is reported. She speaks to the practical routines the family has developed, including safety plans and immediate check-ins, to manage this anxiety, and to the deep emotional impact of explaining to her young son, who had a special bond with his grandfather, that “vavô” will not be coming home.
29Mr. Lucas Carneiro describes the unique burden of learning of the incident via a news alert, while in Portugal, and being the one to raise the alarm with the family. He characterizes the guilt of delivering that news, the sleepless vigil as the situation unfolded, and the nightmares that have followed. As a godson for whom Mr. Silva was a second parent, he recounts the void in family gatherings and in everyday moments where Mr. Silva’s counsel, humour, and companionship would have been present. The tragedy has also constrained his livelihood: he has abandoned construction and underground‑related work, as well as certain plumbing services, because he cannot accept the risk profile of such environments, thereby narrowing his employment opportunities. He reports an enduring loss of trust in workplace safety and expresses the belief that workers’ lives can be treated as expendable. His statement echoes the family’s broader themes: The grief that resurfaces unexpectedly, the silence left by a loved one whose presence animated ordinary life, and the lasting impact on identity and well‑being.
30Taken together, these statements establish that Mr. Silva’s death has inflicted deep and continuing harm across emotional, physical, economic, and practical dimensions of family life. The Court recognizes this harm as real, substantial, and ongoing. While sentences cannot restore what has been lost, the family’s accounts reinforce the gravity of the offences, the centrality of worker safety, and the imperative of denunciation and deterrence in cases of fatal workplace negligence.
The Positions of the Parties:
The Crown’s Position:
31Mr. Hendry, on behalf of the Crown, submits that the offence is marked by significant aggravating factors, foremost the death of a valued employee whose loss has had a devastating and permanent impact on his family. Victim impact statements describe profound grief, lasting emotional harm, and the irreplaceable nature of the deceased’s contributions as a family man, friend, and worker. The Crown emphasizes that the corporation’s criminal negligence resulted in this loss.
32Mitigating factors include a meaningful guilty plea entered in a case presenting triable issues, particularly whether the conduct met the threshold of criminal negligence. Following the incident, the corporation undertook substantial remedial steps consistent with s. 718.21 of the Criminal Code. These included hiring a full‑time safety manager, instituting daily safety inspections, adopting international safety standards, improving confined‑space protocols, and enhancing internal meetings and toolbox talks.
33The Crown notes that restitution is an important component of the proposed sentence. The Crown argues that employment‑related death reported cases are limited, but the proposed sentence aligns with comparable jurisprudence. The Crown highlights that $100,000 in restitution has already been paid to the family. The Crown submits that the joint position appropriately reflects the aggravating and mitigating features, promotes sentencing principles, and will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Technicore’s Position:
34Counsel for the corporation, Mr. Fenton, emphasizes that a financial penalty is the only available sanction for an organization. Technicore and the Crown jointly prioritized securing restitution for the family, and the two‑stage payment schedule reflects this shared objective. The Defence distinguishes R. v. Metron Construction Corporation, 2013 ONCA 541, noting that the facts there were more egregious and that no restitution was paid in that case. Counsel also relies on R. v. Stave Lake Quarries Inc., 2016 BCPC 377, where a joint submission was accepted as fit.
35The corporation highlights significant post‑offence safety improvements as mitigating factors under s. 718.21(j). These include retaining a safety consultant, subsequently hiring a full‑time health and safety inspector, and implementing new policies regarding chamber access and utility isolation, now requiring both lines to be depressurized.
36Technicore submits that its leaders, including CEO Tony DiMillo, are genuinely remorseful. The plea itself reflects acceptance of responsibility. Counsel advises that this period has been personally devastating for the DiMillo family, who also suffered the unrelated death of a daughter in 2023. The corporation maintains that the agreed sentence is fit, proportionate, and consistent with sentencing principles.
The Ministry of Labour’s Position:
37Mr. McCaskill, Counsel for the Ministry, notes that the individual supervisor, Joseph DiMillo, is a first‑time offender and that the joint submission of a $50,000 fine is proportionate given that the statutory maximum at the time of the offence was $100,000 (now increased to $500,000). He underscores the significance of the plea and the importance of general deterrence in workplace‑safety contexts. Although the fine is substantial for a supervisor, counsel submits that the liability is equally serious and that the joint submission is appropriate.
Mr. DiMillo’s Position:
38Defence counsel, Mr. Chung, emphasizes Mr. DiMillo’s personal circumstances. Mr. DiMillo is 41 years old, has no prior record, is married with three young children, and has been steadily employed at Technicore for his entire working life, rising from the ground up to his current managerial role. He was close to the deceased, having worked with him since 2015, and he continues to feel the impact of the incident daily.
39Defence submits that Mr. DiMillo has been instrumental in implementing the corporation’s new safety practices, reflecting genuine remorse and a renewed focus on workplace safety. The joint submission is the product of extensive negotiation and reflects the uncertainty of a criminal negligence trial, which would have been vigorously contested. Counsel argues that the recommended sentence is fair and proportionate.
40At the end of the hearing, Technicore CEO Tony DiMillo, the father of Joseph DiMillo, addressed the Silva family directly and expressed remorse.
The Applicable Code Provisions:
41Technicore pleaded guilty to criminal negligence pursuant to s. 22.1(b), s. 217.1, and s. 219 of the Code. These three sections provide the following:
22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to the offence if
(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization's activities that is relevant to the offence departs - or the senior officers, collectively, depart - markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.
219.(1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it 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.
42The maximum punishment for an individual for an offence under section 220(b) of the Code is life imprisonment. Since the offender in this case is a corporation, the fine in lieu of imprisonment is unlimited pursuant to section 735(1)(a) of the Code when the offence is an indictable offence.
43"Organization" is defined in s. 2 of the Code as including a company and a body corporate. A "senior officer" is defined as:
a representative who plays an important role in the establishment of an organization's policies or is responsible for managing an important aspect of the organization's activities and, in the case of a body corporate, includes a director, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer;
44A "representative", in respect of an organization, means:
a director, partner, employee, member, agent or contractor of the organization;
45Joseph DiMillo falls within the definitions of "representative" and "senior officer.” He is one of two directors at Technicore.
46In addition to the general principles of sentencing found in sections 718 to 718.2, s. 718.21 is applicable to an organization. It states:
718.21 A court that imposes a sentence on an organization shall also take into consideration the following factors:
(a)any advantage realized by the organization as a result of the offence;
(b)the degree of planning involved in carrying out the offence and the duration and complexity of the offence;
(c)whether the organization has attempted to conceal its assets, or convert them, in order to show that it is not able to pay a fine or make restitution;
(d)the impact that the sentence would have on the economic viability of the organization and the continued employment of its employees;
(e)the cost to public authorities of the investigation and prosecution of the offence;
(f)any regulatory penalty imposed on the organization or one of its representatives in respect of the conduct that formed the basis of the offence;
(g)whether the organization was - or any of its representatives who were involved in the commission of the offence were - convicted of a similar offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body for similar conduct;
(h)any penalty imposed by the organization on a representative for their role in the commission of the offence;
(i)any restitution that the organization is ordered to make or any amount that the organization has paid to a victim of the offence; and
(j)any measures that the organization has taken to reduce the likelihood of it committing a subsequent offence.
The OHSA:
47Section 27 outlines the general duties of supervisors. The specific clause regarding precautions for worker protection is:
(c) take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 27.
48This clause is an essential component of the supervisor's responsibilities, which also include advising workers of potential hazards and ensuring compliance with safety requirements.
49The maximum penalties for contravention of the OHSA or its regulations are set out in section 66.
50A person convicted of an offence under the OHSA may be subject to the following:
66 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (2.1), every person who contravenes or fails to comply with,
(a) a provision of this Act or the regulations;
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than twelve months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, s. 66 (1); 2017, c. 34, Sched. 30, s. 4 (1); 2022, c. 7, Sched. 4, s. 2 (1).
(2) If a corporation is convicted of an offence under subsection (1),
(a) the maximum fine that may be imposed upon the corporation is $2,000,000; and
(b) for a second or subsequent offence that results in the death or serious injury of one or more workers in a two-year period, the minimum fine that may be imposed is $500,000. 2024, c. 41, Sched. 3, s. 9.
51At the time of this offence, the maximum fine for a person who contravened the OHSA or the regulations was $100,000.
52Pursuant to section 66(2.2), a court must consider the following aggravating factors in determining the appropriate penalty:
The offence resulted in the death, serious injury or illness of one or more workers.
The defendant committed the offence recklessly.
The defendant disregarded an order of an inspector.
The defendant was previously convicted of an offence under this or another Act.
The defendant has a record of prior non-compliance with this Act or the regulations.
The defendant lacks remorse.
There is an element of moral blameworthiness to the defendant’s conduct.
In committing the offence, the defendant was motivated by a desire to increase revenue or decrease costs.
After the commission of the offence, the defendant,
i. attempted to conceal the commission of the offence from the Ministry or other public authorities, or
ii. failed to co-operate with the Ministry or other public authorities.
- Any other circumstance that is prescribed as an aggravating factor. 2022, c. 7, Sched. 4, s. 2 (2).
Case Law:
53The Crown submitted four cases, which I have reviewed.
54The leading case of R. v. Metron Construction Corporation, 2013 ONCA 541, demonstrates the Court of Appeal’s strong emphasis on denunciation and deterrence in corporate sentencing. Metron pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after four workers died in a swing stage collapse. The company was fined $200,000, but the Court increased the fine to $750,000, finding the original sentence manifestly unfit. The Court clarified that fines under section 735(1) of the Code have no upper limit and must reflect the gravity of the offence. Ability to pay was considered but not determinative; the primary objective was to send a clear message that systemic safety failures resulting in multiple deaths warrant severe penalties. This case set a benchmark for corporate liability and reinforced the principle that fines should never be treated as mere costs of doing business.
55While the Metron case involved a catastrophic collapse of a swing stage that killed four workers due to the company’s knowing tolerance of grossly unsafe practices, including allowing workers to operate elevated equipment while impaired and using a defective platform, the tragedy of Mr. Silva’s death arises from a very different factual matrix. In our case, the fatality occurred deep within a subterranean water‑chamber environment during remedial work on a leaking bypass line, where the dangers stemmed from inadequate hazard assessment, deficient rescue planning, and the absence of essential safety equipment such as harnesses, communication devices, and vertical‑retrieval systems. Unlike the acute, obvious structural hazards and clear supervisory failures present in Metron, the negligence in our case stemmed from systemic lapses in planning, supervision, and emergency preparedness for high‑risk confined‑space work, resulting in a sudden flooding event rather than a collapse of known‑defective equipment. Moreover, Metron involved multiple fatalities and a supervisor’s active participation in unsafe practices, including ingesting marijuana, whereas our case involved a single fatality in a complex hydraulic environment, with the corporation’s culpability grounded in omissions, failure to ensure adequate controls, rather than affirmative acts creating immediate structural danger.
56The case of R. c. CFG Construction inc., 2019 QCCQ 7449, further illustrates the consequences of systemic negligence. CFG Construction was convicted of criminal negligence causing death after an employee died in a truck accident at a worksite. The truck’s brake system was operating at only 53% capacity and had 14 major defects, despite repeated warnings from the driver and mechanics. These failures reflected a persistent culture of indifference to safety, compounded by financial difficulties and poor maintenance practices. The court identified numerous aggravating factors, including prolonged negligence, repeated warnings, financial benefit from avoiding repairs, and a record of regulatory offences before and after the accident. Mitigating factors were minimal, limited to some improvements in garage facilities and partial compensation through premiums. The sentence included a $300,000 fine, a three-year probation order with strict compliance and reporting conditions, and a 15% victim surcharge. The judgment emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives, noting that criminal negligence causing death is among the most serious offences under the Criminal Code.
57In R. v. Stave Lake Quarries Inc., 2016 BCPC 377, the company pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after an employee was killed operating heavy equipment with inadequate training and supervision. The court accepted a joint submission for a $100,000 fine, stressing the importance of general deterrence and the impact of Bill C-45 in imposing corporate liability for workplace safety failures.
58The Stave Lake Quarries case concerned more conventional and predictable operational risks. Moreover, Technicore’s negligence involved multiple omissions, including a lack of a proper FLHA, an absence of a supervisor, inadequate retrieval equipment, and insufficient communication systems, while Stave Lake Quarries focused on a narrower failure related to worker training and supervision. Finally, Stave Lake Quarries resulted in a relatively modest $100,000 fine accepted on a joint submission, whereas Technicore engages the broader organizational‑liability framework of s. 22.1 and s. 217.1 of the Criminal Code, reflecting higher systemic safety expectations for large, specialized infrastructure work.
59By contrast, R. v. Eizenga, 2014 ONCA 361 concerned a large-scale securities fraud resulting in $37 million in losses. While the guilty plea was upheld, the Court of Appeal reduced the restitution order from $35.6 million to $20 million, citing errors in principle and reaffirming that restitution serves to hold offenders accountable and reflect culpability, even when full recovery is unlikely.
60Across these cases, several key principles emerge. Courts prioritize deterrence and denunciation in corporate negligence cases, particularly when workplace safety is compromised. Sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility, and while financial capacity is considered to avoid disproportionate consequences, it does not shield corporations from significant penalties. Persistent non-compliance and a culture of disregard for safety are strong aggravating factors that justify higher fines. These decisions collectively underscore that sentencing must avoid becoming a mere “cost of doing business” and instead serve as a meaningful deterrent to prevent future harm.
The Importance of Joint Submissions:
61Joint submissions on sentence play a crucial role in promoting fairness, efficiency, and predictability within the criminal justice system. They reflect a negotiated resolution reached by informed and adversarial parties, typically the Crown and Defence, each of whom brings distinct institutional responsibilities and perspectives to the process. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, emphasized that joint submissions are to be upheld unless they would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest. This high threshold protects the integrity of the plea‑resolution process by giving counsel the assurance that their carefully negotiated agreements will be respected. Joint submissions also enhance efficiency by encouraging early case resolution, sparing complainants and witnesses from testifying, reducing court delays, and conserving judicial resources. Most importantly, they promote fairness and transparency: resolutions are grounded in a mutual assessment of the evidence, legal risks, and public‑interest considerations, providing a principled basis for sentencing that reinforces confidence in the administration of justice.
Is the Joint Submission Fit and Appropriate?
62In crafting a just sentence, I am guided by the purposes of sentencing set out in s. 718 and the fundamental principle of proportionality in s. 718.1; the sentence must reflect both the grave harm caused and Technicore’s and Mr. DiMillo’s degree of responsibility. I therefore treat as aggravating the prior incident in 2021, the loss of life and the significant, enduring impact on the victim’s family, together with the foreseeability of the risk in a regulated workplace; these considerations align with the deemed and fact‑driven aggravators recognized in s. 718.2(a), including significant victim impact and abuse of responsibility for safety.
63Against these considerations, I give substantial mitigating weight to the meaningful guilty plea entered despite triable issues. The plea spared the family further proceedings and saved approximately four weeks of court time in the Ontario Court of Justice. Its mitigating value is further enhanced by the expressions of remorse, the concrete post‑offence safety reforms, including dedicated safety leadership, enhanced training, and comprehensive policy overhauls and the restitution already paid and committed. These are all factors that s. 718.21 directs the court to consider when sentencing an organization. The Court of Appeal’s guidance in Metron underscores both the seriousness of organizational criminal negligence causing death and the proper application of s. 718.21, while CFG Construction illustrates that failing to invest in essential maintenance may constitute an “advantage realized” that aggravates the sentence.
64Applying the Anthony‑Cook public‑interest test, I accept the joint submission; it promotes proportionality, parity, and certainty in resolution without bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Having considered the unlimited fine jurisdiction for organizations on indictment, I impose a fine of $225,000 on Technicore. The sum of $112,500 must be paid within 12 months, and the further sum of $112,500 must be paid within 18 months. A victim fine surcharge of $67,500 must be paid within 2 years. Finally, a stand-alone restitution order of $200,000 must be paid to Bernadette Silva, $100,000 of which was paid by Technicore today with the remaining $100,000 to be paid within 60 days.
65For the individual supervisor, Mr. Joseph DiMillo, I impose a fine of $50,000 plus the applicable 25% victim‑fine surcharge, payable within two years.
Released: January 27, 2026
Signed: Justice P.T. O’Marra