Indexed as:
South Side Woodwork (1979) Ltd. v. R.C. Contracting
Ltd.
In The Matter Of The Builders' Lien Act
Between
South Side Woodwork (1979) Ltd., Applicant, and
R.C. Contracting Ltd., Confederation Life Insurance Company,
Grayton Properties Limited, The T. Eaton Company Limited and
T. Eaton Realty Co., Respondents
Alberta Judgments: [1989] A.J. No. 111
Action No. 8803-25221
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton (In Chambers)
Master Funduk
February 10, 1989
Emery Jamieson, for the Applicant.
Gibb, Joosse & Peddle, for R.C. Contracting Ltd.
Witten Binder, for balance of Respondents.
REASONS FOR DECISION
MASTER FUNDUK:—
One
This case decides that I am bound by McDonald v. McKenzie, 7. W.W.R. 604 (Alta.
S.C.T.D.).
Two
At various times the superior courts of this province have said that the Builders Lien
Act must be given a strict interpretation in determining whether any lien claimant is a
person to whom a lien is given by it.
That view traces back to The Clarkson Company Limited v. Ace Lumber Limited,
(1963) S.C.R. 110, where the court adopts the dissent of Kelly J.A., when the action was
before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
There is always a danger in applying a decision based on legislation in another
jurisdiction where the legislation is not substantially the same.
Section 30 of the current Act imposes a limitation period for registering a statement of
lien. Section 31 says that "if a lien is not registered within the time prescribed by section
30, the lien ceases to exist."
The simple answer to Nor - Min Supplies v. C.N.R. 106 D.L.R. (3d) 325 (Ont. C.A.) is
that it is not binding on me. McDonald is.
McDonald is a decision by the Supreme Court of Alberta, Trial Division, now the Court
of Queen's Bench. I am bound by decisions of judges of this Court unless they have been
overruled by our Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, or unless there are
contrary decisions by judges of this court, in which case I would face a dilemma (which I
could probably "solve" by ordering a trial of an issue).
Any legal system which has a judicial appeals process inherently creates a pecking
order for the judiary regarding where judicial decisions stand on the legal ladder.
I am bound by decisions of Queen's Bench judges, by decisions of the Alberta Court of
Appeal and by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Very simply, Masters in
Chambers of a superior trial court occupy the bottom rung of the superior courts judicial
ladder.
I do not overrule decisions of a judge of this Court. The judicial pecking order does not
permit little peckers to overrule big peckers. It is the other way around.
MASTER FUNDUK