Imagine a heavy truck crossing a bridge with a clearly defined weight limit. Despite years of experience and multiple training sessions, the driver ends up committing an infraction. Why?
In a recent decision, the Municipal Court of Rosemère found both the transport operator and the driver of a heavy vehicle guilty of circulating on a road prohibited to heavy trucks. Both defendants invoked reasonable diligence as their defence.
The use of a personal GPS, as well as the Provincial Weight Restrictions Directory (“the Directory”), lie at the heart of this case. The key takeaway is clear: following a GPS blindly is not enough to successfully invoke a defence based on reasonable diligence.
What is the defence of reasonable diligence?
A defence of reasonable diligence is available when a defendant can prove that they took every reasonable measure to prevent the alleged event. This means acting as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances to comply with the law.
In regulated industries—such as the operation or driving of heavy vehicles—the burden of proof is even more demanding. It is reasonable to expect individuals working in sectors requiring licences and specialized training to be aware of the applicable rules and standards.
The court examines several criteria, including the likelihood and foreseeability of the act, the gravity of the consequences, the capacity of the party in default to manage the risk, as well as compliance with applicable regulations and industry standards.
Which behaviours demonstrate reasonable diligence?
In the case reviewed by the Municipal Court, the transport operator had implemented a system to ensure compliance with its obligations. A tablet containing the list of clients and the route for deliveries was provided to the driver. However, the tablet’s GPS guidance option was not configured to activate automatically, and activating it manually was left to the driver.
While the employer offered onboarding training, conducted regular evaluations, spot checks, and surprise tests, the court found that these obligations were not sufficiently reflected in the drivers’ behaviours. Some drivers did not use the tablet as prescribed by company policy.
In this instance, the tablet did not refresh quickly enough. The driver therefore chose to use the GPS on his personal cellphone. Neither the tablet nor the GPS indicated that the bridge was prohibited to heavy vehicles.
In this context, the court had to determine whether the two defendants demonstrated reasonable diligence. The judge answered this in the negative.
Although a control system was in place, the evidence showed that it was insufficient. The operator did not consult the Directory to establish delivery routes. Instead, the operator relied on measuring distances and adjusting routes by removing streets where violations had already occurred. This reactive approach does not meet the expected standard of conduct for someone operating in a regulated environment.
Despite a preliminary driver-management system, no controls were exercised afterward. The operator must be able to verify whether the tablet is being used by the driver during trips. In this case, the driver used the GPS on his personal cellphone without supervision. The guidance option on the tablet was optional and not locked to ensure compliance. The absence of active monitoring meant that drivers were not adequately supported or supervised in using the correct tools.
Another essential aspect of the case concerns driver training. Although the operator conducted onboarding training and periodic evaluations, these were not sufficiently adapted to the context of the infraction. The inadequate training contributed to the situation: the driver was not sufficiently prepared to navigate efficiently and avoid restricted roads.
In summary, it is not enough for an operator to put measures in place; those measures must also be appropriate, and the operator must ensure they are monitored and controlled.
A truck driver cannot avoid liability by claiming they relied on GPS without being aware of any restriction on the chosen route. A GPS never replaces the driver’s judgment or the obligation to know and follow signage.
The judge also emphasized that the Directory is free, easy to access, and lists all provincial road network restrictions.
Conclusion
The defence of reasonable diligence in a regulated environment does not allow defendants to simply raise an excuse.
Transport companies and drivers must take every necessary precaution to prevent infractions.
Consulting government tools and providing training adapted to the operational context are crucial elements for ensuring compliance.
Ultimately, vigilance and a proactive approach are essential for navigating the complex maze of road regulations and ensuring the safety of all road users.
This decision is a reminder: reasonable diligence requires consistent effort and heightened vigilance. Transport companies must adopt a proactive attitude to avoid penalties and ensure safer roads.
This publication was featured in Transport Magazine.
