Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 to prove that Mr. Charles
had actually received the notice from the ministry.
 As a result of the charge, Mr. Charles attended at the
Provincial Offences Office and requested an ICON printout of
the ticket that led to the suspension. When he received it, he
learned that the fine originated in Brantford on January 22,
1991. The ministry had renewed the licence of Mr. Charles five
times since the date of the ticket. The ICON printout was filed
with the court and the presiding justice of the peace concluded
that the letters ENF meant “enforcement” and that the date
indicated for that was December 15, 2015, just two days prior
to the date that the notice of suspension was mailed out by
 After hearing all of the evidence, the presiding justice of
the peace found Mr. Charles guilty and concluded that
. . . your due diligence defence is not accepted. It has not been proven on a
balance of probabilities.
 Her Worship did not give any reasons or analysis to reject
the evidence of Mr. Charles other than
(1) “I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this notice
did go to you at your last known address. And the fact that
you have resided at that last known address for a number of
years, that you’re the one that has access to the mail, that
there is nothing within the evidence to suggest that this
document did not get to you in accordance with the ability to
serve documents by mail”; and
(2) “what I understood your evidence to be is that you didn’t get
notice of the fact that this fine was due. That’s not the same
thing in my view of you saying, you didn’t get notice that
your license was under suspension”.
 Section 52 of the Highway Traffic Act deems that service
of a notice of suspension mailed by the Ministry of Transportation shall be seven days after the document has been mailed.
The section states as follows:
52(2) Notice sent by registered mail under clause (1)(a) or by mail under
clause (1)(b) shall be deemed to have been given on the seventh day after
the mailing unless the person to whom the notice is sent establishes that
he or she did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or
other cause beyond his or her control, receive the notice.
 Justice D.A. Harris has done an excellent summary of the
law on this issue in a trilogy of cases: R. v. Harry,  O.J. No.