shall

In finding that the word "shall" in s. 231.3(3) was imperative, Sopinka J. stated (p. 5026):

"As this Court said in Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 SCR 721, at p. 737, the presumption that the word 'shall' is intended to be mandatory should be followed unless:

'such an interpretation of the word 'shall' would be utterly inconsistent with the context in which it has been used and would render the sections irrational or meaningless.'"

The Court affirmed the decision below that the word "shall" in the context of Regulation 4700 was imperative and that the failure of the taxpayer to follow the prescribed form was fatal to its case.

In light of the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of the independence of the judiciary, it was appropriate to interpret the word "shall" to mean "may" so as to leave discretion in the court as to whether seized items can be retained by Revenue Canada.