Mechanics Lien 1.

03 Interpretation (1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules. (2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527 2528 as follows: JUSTICE justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines fair, at Page 1788 as follows FAIR fair,adj.1. Impartial; just; equitable; disinterested <everyone thought that Judge Jones was fair> 2. Free of bias or prejudice <in jury selection, the lawyers tried to select a fair and impartial jury>.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 3136 May it please the Honorable Court the defines merits as the following: MERITS merits. 1. The elements or grounds of a claim or defense; the substantive considerations to be taken into account in deciding a case, as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp. of procedure <trial on the merits>. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294 provide the following excerpt: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found at the following website (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius.aspx ) and is reproduced below for convenience: Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition: Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

In Rodaro, Justice, at 856, defined the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as follows: "... a maxim of interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. In this case, the reference to the assignment to a financial institution excludes assignment to any other entity." In Dorval, Justice Cameron expressed it as: "... to express one thing is to exclude another."

The New Brunswick Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 which states: 17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision. Statutory interpretation should be approached with the following analytical framework set out in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1998 CanLII 837 (S.C.C.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at pages 40 and 41: Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation . . ., Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states: Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. In Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J., provided the following insight into the Principles of Statutory Interpretation: Today there is only one principle or approach; namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

provides that every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. words, like people, take their colour from their surroundings. This being the case, where the provision under consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the scheme of the Act are more expansive.., as the principle of interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter. Other principles of interpretation such as the strict construction of penal statutes and the Charter values presumption only receive application where there is ambiguity as to the meaning of a provision.

What, then, in law is an ambiguity? It is only when genuine ambiguity arises between two or more plausible readings, each equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute, that the courts need to resort to external interpretive aids (emphasis added), to which I would add, including other principles of interpretation.

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to Ct, supra, an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment. Sullivan echoes these comments noting that a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile.

The Appelant will refer to and rely on the well established principle of statutory interpretation, that: the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. an interpretation may be considered absurd, if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment

a label of absurdity may be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile.

The Mechanics Lien Act R.S.N.B. 1973, c.M-6

52.1(1) An action to enforce a lien shall be deemed to be discontinued one year after the action is commenced unless (a) the action has been set down for trial, or (b) an application has been made to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick for an order continuing the action and a copy of the notice of application has been served on the defendant to the action. 52.1(2) In ordering the continuance of an action, the judge may impose such terms and conditions and give such directions as the judge

The Mechanics Lien Act R.S.N.B. 1973, c.M-6 does not require the Action be set down for trial within one year, as erroneously stated by the Learned Trial Judge, merely that one of the two conditions, either subsection a) or subsection b) of Section 52.1 of the Mechanics Lien Act, be complied with so that the Mechanics Lien shall not be deemed to be discontinued. The act of Application to the Court for a Continuance, expresses the Appellants desire to resolve the matter on its merits and therefore the Court should, absent some compelling reason, grant the requested Continuance, therefore to see that justice is, done between the Parties. Neither the Rules of Court nor the Mechanics Lien Act, state criteria for the Court to consider in granting a Continuance, nor conditions which must be met; application is sufficient when made and Served on the Respondent.

I as Lien Claimant require a Continuance of this Mechanics Lien Action that may afford both sides, that being the Plaintiff and the Defendants may attend discovery and pursue as just settlement out of Court as I am confident is possible.

Further to that matter it appears to me that there has been a great deal of effort to be deny the Plaintiff in this matter the opportunity to be discovered and or to discover the

other side as the legislators in their wisdom as they issued the mechanics Lien act recognized the wisdom of Discovery as opposed to Court Action.

It certainly appears to be optimistic on the part of the Legislators of the Mechanics Lien Act, but never the less appears to be the most objective and reasonable method to obtain remedy.