Charged with an expired licence or plate sticker? This Supreme Court case explains why waiting for a reminder usually isn't enough of a defence.

Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, 2006 SCC 12, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on two defences to regulatory offences, such as many Highway Traffic Act charges: due diligence and officially induced error.
For most regulatory offences, you can avoid conviction by showing you took all reasonable steps to comply. Simply not knowing, or waiting for a reminder that never came, usually isn't enough.

Two drivers, one a person and one a company, were charged in Quebec with driving with an expired licence and an unregistered vehicle. Both said they hadn't received the usual renewal notices or were confused by the government's information.
Most Highway Traffic Act offences are strict liability: the prosecution doesn't have to prove intent, but you can defend yourself by proving due diligence.
Wondering how a decision like this applies to your situation? NEO can review your facts and explain your options. Call 647-200-3526 or toll-free 888-519-2435, email info@neolegalservices.com, or book a free consultation.
Read next: Tilden v. Clendenning: When the Fine Print Doesn't Bind You
General Ontario legal information, not legal advice for your matter, and reading it does not create a retainer. Sources checked 15 October 2026: check the current law, forms and dates before you act.
Photos from Pexels: Writing a date in a desk calendar · Signing an official document.
This article is general information for people in Ontario, not legal advice. Rules, forms and deadlines change, and every situation is different. Check the current rule or speak to a licensed legal professional before you act.
Not sure where you stand? A licensed paralegal can look at your documents and tell you your options.
Book a Free ConsultationLoading comments…