Recent US litigation against JB Hunt raises questions about the threshold for effective carrier driver oversight. As part of the lawsuit against the carrier and driver it is alleged the carrier did not effectively monitor the driver or correct the driver’s behaviour and this lack of oversight contributed to the collision. This case underscores the complexities of internal monitoring regulations for commercial carriers, especially in the absence of clear regulatory guidance.
Regulatory Requirements for Carrier Hours of Service Monitoring
The Federal Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) impose several key obligations on carriers:
However, these regulations do not define what constitutes adequate monitoring or what corrective actions are necessary for different violation thresholds, leaving significant room for interpretation.
The JB Hunt Case: A Breakdown of the Allegations
In this case, a JB Hunt driver was involved in a fatal collision in the US while allegedly using his phone on a dating app. This was confirmed with driver facing camera data and phone records. Prior to the collision, two incidents within 6 weeks raised concerns about the driver’s behavior:
The issue in the lawsuit is whether the carrier’s failure to address the previous incidents contributed to the driver’s negligence. This raises a larger question: should a single five-second violation trigger disciplinary action by a carrier?
Industry Standards vs. Regulatory Ambiguity
Carriers receive frequent alerts from electronic logging devices (ELDs) and AI-driven cameras for minor infractions 24 hours a day. Without explicit regulatory guidance, it remains unclear how many brief incremental time violations should warrant carrier intervention. Regulators like Transport Canada, the CCMTA, and Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight have yet to provide an ELD interpretation guide despite the regulation being in effect for four years.
Key considerations include:
Regulatory Harmonization and Compliance Uncertainty
The lack of clear internal monitoring standards complicates enforcement. The Regulations Amending the Contraventions Regulations (SOR/2023-137) propose a $2,000 penalty per driver for a carrier’s failure to monitor. Yet, without concrete guidance, how can regulators fairly assess compliance?
As Transport Canada and the CCMTA work toward inter-provincial regulation harmonization, cases like JB Hunt’s illustrate the pressing need for explicit internal monitoring directives. Incremental time violations are a fact of life in data rich environments like ELDs and driver facing cameras. Clear regulatory guidance is urgently needed and would benefit carriers by ensuring fair enforcement and reducing liability uncertainties.
Conclusion While the JB Hunt case highlights the potential consequences of inadequate monitoring, it also exposes gaps in regulatory clarity. Carriers need definitive guidance on what constitutes effective driver hour of service oversight to ensure compliance and roadway safety. Until such guidance is provided, industry stakeholders remain in a precarious position—balancing operational feasibility with legal risk in an evolving regulatory landscape.
The issue of chameleon carriers is a persistent and significant problem in Canada’s transportation industry. These carriers circumvent safety regulations and penalties by closing and reopening under new names, posing risks to road safety, drivers, and the public. Despite ongoing discussions among industry stakeholders and government bodies, there remains a lack of decisive action to tackle this problem, exacerbating challenges for road safety and fair competition.
What is a Chameleon Carrier?
According to the CVSA Inspection Bulletin 2021-03, a chameleon carrier refers to a company that shuts down and reopens under a different name or registration number (USDOT/NSC/CVOR/NIR) to avoid penalties, fines, or enforcement actions. This illegal practice undermines regulatory efforts and allows dangerous carriers to continue operations. Chameleon carriers often hide ownership by registering the business under the names of family members or using complex shareholder structures. Although this makes it difficult to trace, it is not impossible if regulators have the political will to act. Chohan for example stated in the news that the new company in Alberta was owned by the same family as the BC company that was booted out of BC for hitting too many bridges and a house. This highlights the problem of weak government oversight, allowing repeat offenders to re-enter the market under a different guise.
Regulatory Gaps in Canada
Unlike the United States, where the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) uses a unified registration system to identify and shut down chameleon carriers, Canada lacks a national system. Each province and territory handles the safety and monitoring of commercial carriers within its jurisdiction through the Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) system. Although the National Safety Code (NSC) standard 7 requires provinces, territories, and North American neighbors to share enforcement data, significant gaps remain in enforcement and coordination.
In Alberta, the carrier profile system is flawed and the Third-Party Auditor (TPA) program, which is meant to ensure compliance, is ineffective, see my blog Don’t Look Behind the Curtain, Unveiling the Alberta Transportation Safety Scam. This lack of comprehensive monitoring and enforcement allows chameleon carriers to operate undetected, as no one is thoroughly overseeing their activities. As a result, public safety is compromised, and responsible carriers face higher insurance premiums.
Limited Reforms Post-Humboldt
Following the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash, changes were made to driver training and new carrier entry rules. However, these reforms did not address the chameleon carrier crisis. In Alberta, for instance, when a company applies for an SFC, there is a checkbox asking if they previously held an SFC in another province and were deemed unsatisfactory. Yet, the penalty for providing false information is only $1,000—an insufficient deterrent.
The regulations permit the Registrar to cancel an SFC for false information, but enforcement is lacking, and there is no political will to take necessary action.
Strengthening Enforcement and Collaboration
To address the chameleon carrier issue, Alberta needs to enhance its enforcement mechanisms. The International Registration Plan (IRP) requirement for an “Established Place of Business” could be a vital tool for identifying chameleon carriers. The IRP mandates that carriers maintain a physical structure within Alberta, staffed during business hours. This could serve as an additional layer of verification to ensure that rogue operators cannot easily hide or relocate.
Collaboration between regulatory bodies like Alberta TEC and Alberta Prorate is essential to cracking down on chameleon carriers. By working together, these organizations could create programs, potentially secure funding, and demonstrate the political commitment needed to clean up the industry.
Conclusion: Urgency for Reform
The ongoing problem of chameleon carriers demands comprehensive regulatory reform and robust enforcement. The current lack of coordination and weak oversight allows these carriers to endanger public safety, harm the livelihoods of drivers, and skew competition within the transportation industry. It's time to restore trust and integrity to the Canadian transport network. Canada does not need a federal transportation program to replace the existing jurisdictional model. The jurisdictions just need to do their jobs, fix the Carrier Profile system and start communicating and collaborating.
