The appellants challenged a municipal tax sale of an island they had mistakenly occupied and improved, arguing the municipality had confused two islands and that no meaningful tax arrears existed on the occupied property.
The majority held that tax arrears on the registered parcel triggered the Municipal Tax Sales Act, 1984, that any assessment invalidity was insulated by s. 13(1)(a), and that the appellants' adverse possession claim failed because they were not abutting landowners within s. 9(5)(c).
The dissent would have applied a purposive interpretation to avoid an absurd and unjust result, concluding that the substantive trigger of tax arrears never truly arose.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
