R v Azzoli

R. v. Azzoli

[1983] O.J. No. 2466
Ontario Provincial Court — Montgomery Prov. Ct. J. | December 19, 1983

Background

Azzoli received a notice on May 4, 1983, informing him that his driver's licence would be suspended under section 29(2) of the Highway Traffic Act for an unpaid fine. Knowing he had to leave for New York City for three weeks and that reinstatement would take ten working days, he immediately gave the notice to his secretary with instructions to phone City Hall, find out about the fine, and get it paid. While in New York, he stayed in contact with his secretary and assumed the matter had been resolved.

When Azzoli returned from his trip, he assumed his licence was reinstated and began driving again. However, he was stopped by police and charged with driving while suspended under section 35 of the Highway Traffic Act. Shocked to learn his licence was still suspended because the fine had never been paid, he asked the officer what to do and was told to pay immediately. The next day, he paid the fine himself.

Issues

1. Whether Azzoli could rely on the defence of due diligence for the strict liability offence of driving while suspended
2. Whether the ambiguous wording of the suspension notice affected the case

The Due Diligence Defence

The court applied the Supreme Court's framework from R. v. Sault Ste Marie, treating driving while suspended as a strict liability offence where the defence of due diligence is available. Under this test, a defendant can escape conviction if they reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would make their conduct innocent.

The judge found Azzoli's conduct entirely reasonable. He had acted immediately upon receiving the notice, delegated the task to his support staff (which the court noted was reasonable for someone with employees), maintained contact while away, and had every reason to believe the simple task of paying a fine had been completed. The court emphasized that reasonable people rely on their support staff and can assume they will perform their duties.

The Ambiguous Notice

The court was particularly critical of the government's suspension notice. The document stated that the licence "is suspended" effective May 17, 1983, but then included contradictory language saying payment should be made immediately "if you are to avoid suspension." The judge found this wording ambiguous — how could someone "avoid suspension" if they were already suspended? Under legal principles requiring ambiguities to be resolved in favour of the defendant, this unclear language supported Azzoli's defence.

Key Takeaway

Due diligence can be a complete defence to driving while suspended if you took all reasonable steps to comply with the law.

This case shows that delegation to competent staff, immediate action upon receiving notices, and reasonable follow-up can establish due diligence. It also demonstrates that poorly worded government notices can create successful defences when their ambiguous language misleads defendants about their obligations.