The defendant was charged with driving while suspended contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and displaying a suspended driver's licence contrary to s. 35(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The Crown proved the defendant was a suspended driver on the date in question.
The defendant raised a due diligence defence, claiming he was confused about remedial measures requirements and had not received notice of suspension by mail.
The court found the defendant had been personally served with notice of suspension and that his actions fell short of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.
The court rejected the defence of officially induced error and convicted the defendant on both charges.
