The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application to quash a new construction notice and recalculated property tax bills issued by the respondent municipality.
The municipality had failed to issue the notice within the 60-day period prescribed by s. 331(9) of the Municipal Act, 2001, delaying the billing by several years due to software limitations.
The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's finding that the word 'shall' in s. 331(9) is directory, not mandatory.
A mandatory interpretation would frustrate the statutory purpose of taxing comparable properties equally and grant the appellant a perpetual tax holiday, whereas a directory interpretation fulfilled the legislative intent without causing significant prejudice.
