that he did not receive the “fine”. Her Worship interpreted that
evidence to mean that he did not receive notice of when the fine
was due, but it is clear that Mr. Charles was referring to
the Ministry of Transportation notice filed by the prosecutor
which set out that the suspension was as a result of a “ticket” or
 In his evidence, Mr. Charles, who was unrepresented at
the time, testified:
Um, according to that paper, the Ministry have sent me that paper there
and they claimed that they sent it to me in the mail.
 He then went on to explain:
And I was told that. That’s what they claim, but it never came, I never
received that mail.
 The only paper in the courtroom at the time was the ministry documentation. Unfortunately, Her Worship misunderstood
what Mr. Charles was saying.
 Her Worship also did not offer reasons why she believed
that Mr. Charles received the notice in the mail other than to
state that he did so because he lived at his address and he
therefore must have received it. With respect, there was no
evidentiary basis to dispute the testimony of Mr. Charles that
he did not receive the notice and, as I have stated earlier, I am
not prepared to find that the mail is always delivered promptly
and to the right address. Since the evidence of Mr. Charles was
not rejected, I find that it satisfied the test on a balance of
 Therefore, as stated eloquently by Justice Fairgrieve,
those who are “morally innocent” of the offence because they did
not know that they were under suspension and who were “
persons who really have done nothing wrong” should not be found
guilty in these circumstances. I would allow the appeal and dismiss the charge against Mr. Charles.