The Plaintiff applied, pursuant to Rule 9.21, to renew a Judgment that it received in 2004. The Defendants argued that, since the Plaintiff did not undertake some form of collection every three years to enforce the Judgment, the Judgment should not be renewed pursuant to Rule 4.33. Master Schulz observed that Rule 1.7 provides that the meaning of the Rules arises from the text in light of the purpose and intention of the Rules as a whole, and within the context of a particular Rule. The Court held that the purpose and intention of Rule 4.33 is to determine whether what has been done in the Action moves it closer to Trial in a meaningful way. Rule 4.33 is intended to address the process to be followed before Judgment is obtained. Master Schulz stated that the purpose of Rule 9.21 is to expedite procedure and render it less expensive. It allows a simplified and expeditious approach to renewing a Judgment. The Rule is intended to address the process to be followed after a Judgment is obtained. Both Rules 4.33 and 9.21 demonstrate the principles encouraged by Rule 1.2. Master Schulz noted that, if Rule 4.33 applied to the renewal of a Judgment, the Rule would contradict s. 11 of the Limitations Act. Master Schulz held that Rule 4.33 has no applicability to Rule 9.21, and the Application to renew the Judgment was granted.