{ΒΆ 43} Additionally, any ambiguity or uncertainty in a statute permits the use of in pari materia to examine statutory construction in order to ascertain the General Assembly's legislative intent. See State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office, 2017-Ohio-8714 (in pari materia is used where doubt or ambiguity exists in the wording of a statute and the wording is capable of more than one meaning); Bauer v. Grange Mut. Casualty Co., 33 Ohio App.3d 145, 148 (12th Dist.) ("[statutes and subsections within the same chapter of the Revised Code should be read in pari materia with one another . . . so as to fully effectuate the General Assembly's intent ...."). The application of in pari materia to this case makes clear that the General Assembly deliberately left R.C. 2945.481(C)(2), (E), and (F)(2) in place so as to pass constitutional scrutiny while at the same time protecting the child as a confronting witness of the accused.
In addition, other courts have also unequivocally stated, without any analysis of the issue, that R.C. 3937.32(E) requires a ten-day notice prior to the effective date of cancellation. See Clarke v. Smith (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 337; Love v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 394, 400-402, motion to certify overruled (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 1497; Bauer v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 145, 148; Shreve v. Leader Natl. Ins. Co. (June 30, 1983), Clermont App. No. 83-02-016, unreported; Gast v. West American Ins. Co. (June 25, 1980), Hamilton App. No. C-790357, unreported. We also note that this court has before upheld a cancellation date that was effective thirteen days after the mailing of the notice of cancellation in Casto v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 410.