Six killed in single-vehicle crash near Barrie - August 27, 2022

[Benz]

"Barrie police noted that a "unique set of circumstances" led to the company, not a specific individual, being charged in this "very complex investigation."

I think that "unique set of circumstances" is legal-speak for not finding anything specific that was done wrong but instead wanting to blame a corporation (which will probably stick) rather than any individuals (which would be a much more difficult case to make).

Although it may not be popular, I am of the opinion (and that's all it is) that a key element of these circumstances is that the driver was mostly to blame for what happened. Given this, I am also of the opinion that the lack of assigning individual culpability on the part of Con-Drain personnel may be an effort to seek a quiet corporate-level settlement rather than proceeding to a trial which will publicly expose the details of this "unique set of circumstances" especially if may incriminate one of those who died.

[mpare]

I doubt that the corporation would be eager to plead guilty. They haven't hired a stellar defence lawyer for nothing. Nor are they likely to enter guilty pleas that would constitute an admission that they were responsible for the deaths of six young adults, while at the same time likely facing potential fines in the millions of dollars. Given the publicity that this tragic crash has attracted, it's not obvious how any "quite corporate-level settlement" could ever be reached. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine that the Crown would see any the societal benefit in faciliating an under the radar resolution of the matter. All of that said, only the Crown and the Defence know all the facts, which may compel an approach to this prosecution that is not obvious to the rest of us.

I think that "unique set of circumstances" is legal-speak for not finding anything specific that was done wrong but instead wanting to blame a corporation (which will probably stick) rather than any individuals (which would be a much more difficult case to make).

Although it may not be popular, I am of the opinion (and that's all it is) that a key element of these circumstances is that the driver was mostly to blame for what happened. Given this, I am also of the opinion that the lack of assigning individual culpability on the part of Con-Drain personnel may be an effort to seek a quiet corporate-level settlement rather than proceeding to a trial which will publicly expose the details of this "unique set of circumstances" especially if may incriminate one of those who died.

[Ignatius Reilly]

I effectively know none of the actual facts except for this:

It was possible for a car to get into that open 20m deep pit with fatal consequences.

Reasonable speculations:

1) The roadway was improperly or insufficiently marked
2) The pit was insufficiently guarded from accidental entry.
3) Speed and lack of care by the driver contributed to the accident.
4) Drugs and/or alcohol may have contributed to the driver's actions.
5) Both Con-Drain and the driver share responsibility for the accident.

Those will be the focus of the investigation and blame and penalties will result from that.

Wild *** Guesses:

The police assigned culpability to the corporation not the individuals based on the law or precedent.
I doubt that Con-Drain has any interest in protecting the driver.
I suspect the "real" culpability is with the individuals. Most big corporations have pretty thorough processes, oversight and training to avoid this, but.... you can't completely prevent incompetence.

We'll see what the courts decide.