Based on the facts below, consider how/if the law applies.

SCENARIO

McDonald was a farmer and the owner of a four-ton Massey-Ferguson tractor. Due to the massive size of the tractor, it had a large platform behind the driver's seat. McDonald had been unable to have her vehicle checked in February because bad weather had made her tractor ice-locked in the shed during the entire month. She had the tractor inspected on April 1 as soon as the weather warmed up. One beautiful spring Sunday in April, McDonald decided she would take her family (a husband and 11 children) for a picnic. Accordingly, she loaded her family and some food onto the back of the tractor so that the food containers were resting on the platform, and her husband and 11 children were all standing on the platform. She drove a few kilometers up the road towards a river where she intended to have the picnic. She had only gone part of the distance when Constable Plod stopped her. He said, "Why don't you have a red flag on the back of your tractor?" McDonald replied, "I didn't know I had to have a red flag". Constable Plod said "You are required by the Ontario Carriage of Persons Act to have a red flag on the back of your tractor. I am going to charge you".

McDonald was charged under s. 5 and s.7 of the Act, which states:

s.5 Red Flag

Any vehicle adapted for the carriage of more than eight persons shall display at its rear a red flag at all times while it is on a public road.

s.7 Vehicle to be Checked

The owner of any vehicle referred to in section 5 of this Act, unless prevented by war, disturbance, or any other cause, shall have his vehicle mechanically checked during the month of February each year.

QUESTIONS

1. Acting as defence paralegal for McDonald, what arguments would you use on her behalf?
2. Acting as the provincial prosecutor, what arguments would you make against McDonald?

in the Mc Donald case in question I would like someone to help me understand what Glammerical Rule which are seven :

Ejusdem Generis

Noscitur A Sociis

Expressio unius Est Exclusio Alterius

And/or

means/includes and

must / May which of theses statutes can I apply to this case and why it's related to the case in question as well as interpretation/ precedents thank you and I hope to hear from an expert son