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