working in London at the time of the offence. He recalled that he
had worked late on March 17 and stayed at his parent’s residence in London. On the 18th, he went home after he was
charged. He checked his mailbox and there was no mail. On the
19th, he checked his mail again and received the notice of suspension for an outstanding fine. He immediately went and paid
the fine and his licence was reinstated on March 20.
 The presiding justice of the peace found Mr. Golbasz guilty
and concluded that the
. . . evidence provided in support of the defence of due diligence, in my view,
fails to support that Mr. Golbasz, on a balance of probability, took all rea-
sonable steps to prevent his license falling into suspension.
 His Worship did not reject the evidence of Mr. Golbasz.
Rather, he found that Mr. Golbasz had not met the criteria to
raise the due diligence defence because
(1) the defendant acknowledged that approximately ten years
prior to the offence he had been convicted of driving while
under suspension, and therefore “it is impossible to imagine
how he could not have taken all required steps to avoid a
similar outcome in the event of a future ticket”; and
(2) “that he did not respond to a traffic ticket that ultimately
led to an unpaid fine and the license suspension”.
The Background of the Charles Case
 Keith Charles was operating his motor vehicle on January
3, 2016 when he was stopped by Constable Van Belleghem of the
London Police Services at 1:44 in the morning. After the officer
conducted a computer check, he learned that Mr. Charles’ licence
had been suspended because of an outstanding fine. He charged
 To prove that Mr. Charles was under suspension, at
his trial, the prosecutor filed a Ministry of Transportation certificate setting out that on December 17, 2015 the licence of
Mr. Charles was suspended for an unpaid fine and that the
notice was mailed to his address of [number omitted] Culver
Drive, in the City of London.
 Mr. Charles testified in his own defence. He told the court
that he had no idea that his licence was under suspension and
that he had never received any notice. He agreed that he had
resided at [number omitted] Culver Street for a number of years
and that he attended to pick up his mail regularly. There was
no other evidence other than the presumption in s. 52 of the