Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Military Retirement Extension

Date: 20260707 Docket: T-2221-25 Citation: 2026 FC 912 Ottawa, Ontario, July 7, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME] (Retired) [Applicant], served with the [NAME] [[NAME]] and with the [NAME]. He obtained two extensions of his release date after reaching his compulsory retirement age [CRA] of 60 amounting to a period of one year. [ 2 ] The Applicant then applied for a third extension of his release date for an additional four years, until August 7, 2025. This request was refused on July 21, 2021 [CRA Decision]. The Applicant undertook a grievance process of this refusal that culminated in a decision of the Final Authority within the [NAME] [Final Authority], dated May 9, 2025. The Final Authority denied the grievance, concluding there were no exceptional need or operational requirement justifying a further extension of the Applicant’s service [FA Decision]. [ 3 ] I am mindful that the Applicant is self-represented and understand the frustration that he expressed at the hearing. However, from a legal perspective, I cannot grant this judicial review, for the reasons that follow.

II. Background and Decision Under Review [ 4 ] Members of the [NAME] are imposed a mandatory retirement age of 60 – which is also referred to as a “release” . For ease of reference, I will use the term release in this Judgment. [ 5 ] In the Applicant’s case, he was due to be released from the [NAME] on August 7, 2020. The Applicant obtained extensions of his CRA, first to October 31, 2020, and then to August 7, 2021, under a special directive during the COVID-19 pandemic, issued as a [NAME] communication to the [NAME], as “CANFORGEN 050/20 Voluntary Delay of Releases from the [NAME] due to COVID-19” dated April 6, 2020 [CANFORGEN 050/20]. CANFORGEN 050/20 was cancelled in May 2021. [ 6 ] On January 19, 2021, the Applicant applied for a further (third) extension of his CRA, until his 65 th birthday, being August 7, 2025. On February 16, 2021, a Career Manager with the [NAME] [[NAME]], wrote in support of his extension application, after the Applicant contacted her on February 4, 2021. The Applicant advised that he incorrectly sent his extension request to his employing Commanding Officer. The Applicant indicated that he reaffirmed being available for continued employment with the [NAME]. The request was then sent through the Applicant’s chain of command [[NAME]]. [ 7 ] On May 11, 2021, the Commanding Officer of HMCS Cabot, where the Applicant was posted [CO], confirmed by way of letter that he did not support the request for a CRA extension beyond August 7, 2021. By way of summary, the CO described that the Applicant’s original extensions were warranted for specific operations and that the personnel deficiencies that existed one year prior had since been filled. [ 8 ] In a briefing note prepared on July 8, 2021, and signed on July 21, 2021, by the [NAME] of the [NAME] and the Chief of Military Personnel [CMP], both signatories confirmed that they did not approve the extension request [Briefing Note]. [ 9 ] The Briefing Note outlined the background of the Applicant’s extension request. It noted that the Applicant’s CO did not support the request and then proceeded to examine the Applicant’s unit’s and [NAME] [NAVRES] operational needs. The Briefing Note also referred to [NAME] service officer numbers within the NAVRES as well as the unit level in St. [NAME]’s, Newfoundland, where the Applicant was serving. The number of [NAME] service officers within NAVRES was at a healthy level, and the current budgetary allocations, while insufficient to sustain personnel strength, prioritized the hard sea trades. The Briefing Note explained that the Applicant’s unit in St. [NAME]’s had recently received an influx of senior officers transferring from the [NAME], of rehires, and of a healthy production of junior officers, and that after the operations that the Applicant had previously participated in, there are no operational requirements or exceptional circumstances currently existing “at this time or are forecasted at the unit level” . The Briefing Note also confirmed that the [NAME] ([NAME]) was briefed and concurred with the unit assessment. [ 10 ] In conclusion, the Briefing Note indicated that while the Applicant “was skilled in certain areas, his skillsets are not unique in the [NAME], his unit or his region” and that NAVRES did not recommend that the extension request be endorsed or approved. The Applicant’s release date was then extended for an additional 30 days to allow for “proper transition.” As such, on September 15, 2021, the Applicant was released from the [NAME]. [ 11 ] On September 7, 2021, the Applicant submitted a grievance of the CRA Decision. He claimed that this decision was rendered in a procedurally unfair manner because the information provided to the CMP on his CRA extension had not been disclosed to him prior to the decision denying his request. He asserted that the CMP did not have the entire facts to make an “unbiased decision” . [ 12 ] The CMP, who was directly responsible to the Chief of Defence Staff [CDS], rendered the CRA Decision. As a result, and pursuant to the Queen’s Regulations and Orders , Volume 1, Chapter 7, Article 7.13(B) [[NAME]], the grievance skipped an Initial Authority level. In other words, with respect to the Applicant’s specific grievance it was entitled to only one level of review and proceeded directly to the Final Authority. [ 13 ] The Final Authority is the CDS, or his or her delegate, which in this case was [NAME]. Before the Final Authority can make a determination, the grievance is referred to the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC], for review. After the MGERC completes its review, it provides its Findings and Recommendations in writing to the CDS and the [NAME] member. [ 14 ] On October 26, 2021, the MGERC issued its findings and recommendations report [MGERC Findings and Recommendations], recommending that the Applicant’s grievance be denied. The MGERC took into consideration a letter written by the Applicant’s CO and the Briefing Note that recommended not extending the Applicant’s CRA. [ 15 ] The MGERC underlined that the applicable policy is that the member shall be released at age 60, except as prescribed by the CDS. The Applicant’s extension of service until the age of 65 was not supported by the Applicant’s CO and was thus not granted, on the basis that there were no further operational requirements or exceptional circumstances to grant an additional extension, and since the Applicant’s skill sets were not unique in the NAVRES. The MGERC further concluded that the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness. Since the CRA Decision, on August 3, 2021, the Applicant had been provided with all the information before the [NAME] and has not identified which information he believes was missing or incomplete. [ 16 ] On October 27, 2021, the MGERC Findings and Recommendations were provided to the Applicant, the Final Authority and the Director of the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority [DCFGA], who was in communications with the Applicant throughout the grievance process. [ 17 ] The Applicant requested and was given extensions of time to provide submissions in response to the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. On January 11, 2022, he provided written submissions in response to the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. [ 18 ] In April 2022, the Applicant corresponded with [NAME], of the DCFGA, in relation to his submissions in response to the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. The Applicant asked if there would be further disclosure, and whether there would be an opportunity to make additional submissions. He indicated that he was making requests under the Access to Information Act [ATIP] and that he wished to add information to his file when he will receive documents further to the ATIP requests. [ 19 ] On April 11, 2022, [NAME] confirmed that the Applicant could submit additional information. She also confirmed that there would be no further disclosure since he had already been provided with all the relevant information. [ 20 ] On May 26, 2022, the Applicant submitted a document to [NAME] dated January 20, 2021, that was written by his [NAME], which he received further to an ATIP request. Some parts of the document were redacted. [NAME] confirmed that this documentation would be added to his file. [ 21 ] On July 27 and 28, 2022, the Applicant and [NAME] corresponded. The Applicant advised he received further ATIP documents that he wanted to add to his file. [NAME] asked for clarification if he wished to make further submissions and asked for a “rough timeline” for these submissions. The Applicant confirmed that he intended to make further submissions and would provide a timeline. [ 22 ] On January 20, 2023, [NAME] contacted the Applicant to follow up on whether he intended to provide additional representations. The Applicant responded on the same day. He indicated that there was an ongoing Privacy Act investigation arising from the CO’s January 20, 2021, letter. However, he did not specify that he would make further submissions. [ 23 ] On May 9, 2025, the Final Authority released its decision, refusing the Applicant’s CRA extension request. The Final Authority Decision was reached de novo , based on the Applicant’s grievance submissions. The Final Authority indicated that it was also relying on the detailed findings in the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. The Final Authority observed that although the Applicant may have wished that his [NAME]’s recommendation be granted greater weight, the CDS ultimately decided that the extension was not required. They recognized the Applicant’s skillset but found that the current operational requirement was in the hard sea trades.

Accordingly, the Applicant was not fulfilling a critical need for the [NAME]. [ 24 ] The Final Authority concluded that there was no exceptional need or operational requirement to extend the Applicant’s service further. Moreover, the Final Authority noted that as all documents relating to the CMP decision had been shared with the Applicant, there was no evidence that procedural fairness has been breached. [ 25 ] The Final Authority’s Decision is the decision under review.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 26 ] The Applicant has framed the issue in his Memorandum of Fact and Law as “whether the decision of the Chief of Military Personnel to deny the Applicant’s Compulsory Age extension and direct his release from the military was unreasonable.” The Applicant also claims that the Final Authority Decision was arrived at in a procedurally unfair manner. [ 27 ] The Final Authority Decision is the decision under judicial review. As such, the issue before the Court on judicial review is whether the Final Authority Decision was arrived at in a procedurally fair manner, and whether the Final Authority Decision is unreasonable. [ 28 ] The Respondent submits, and I agree, that the applicable standard of review with respect to the merits of the Decision is reasonableness ( Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at para 25 [ [NAME] ]). [ 29 ] As I explained to the Applicant during the hearing, the role of the Court on judicial review is to examine the reasons provided and to seek to understand the reasoning process followed by the [NAME] to arrive at its conclusion. It is not a new or de novo hearing where the Court determines the merits of the Applicant’s grievance. [ 30 ] The Supreme Court instructs that a reviewing court conducting a reasonableness review starts with the reasons and assesses whether the decision is reasonable in outcome and process, in relation to the factual and legal constraints that bear upon the [NAME] ( [NAME] at paras 81, 83, 87, 99). [ 31 ] Reviewing courts should not ask how they themselves would have resolved an issue. Instead, the Court should focus on whether the decision made by the administrative [NAME] — including both the rationale for the decision and the outcome to which it led — was unreasonable ( [NAME] at paras 75, 83). A reviewing court should not create its “own yardstick and then use [it] to measure what the [administrative [NAME]] did” , ask what decision it would have made instead or try to determine the “correct” solution to the problem ( [NAME] at para 83). [ 32 ] The party challenging the decision, here, the Applicant, must satisfy the Court that the decision is unreasonable, and that the identified shortcomings or flaws in the decision are sufficiently central or significant to render it unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 33 ] A claim of procedural fairness is determined on a standard of review more akin to the standard of correctness. [ADDRESS] must analyze whether the proceedings were fair in light of all the circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at paras 21 - 28 [ [NAME] ] ; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited v Canada ([NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54 - 56; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 FCA 267 at para 14). [ 34 ] The fundamental question remains whether the Applicant knew the case to meet and whether he had a full and fair opportunity to respond to it. The duty to act fairly is twofold: (1) the right to a fair and impartial hearing before an independent [NAME], and (2) the right to be heard ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2022 FC 374 at para 14; Therrien (Re) , 2001 SCC 35 at para 82). Everyone is entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present his or her case ( [NAME] at para 28).

IV. Analysis A. The Relevant Legal Constraints [ 35 ] The following paragraphs explain the legal constraints that bear upon the [NAME]. [ 36 ] The parties do not contest that age 60 is the compulsory retirement age for all [NAME] members (Regular Force and Primary Reserve). [ 37 ] The [NAME] grievance process is governed by the National Defence Act, RSC, 1985, c N-5 [Act] at sections 29 to 29.28, Chapter 7 of the [NAME] and the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives [DAOD], namely, DAOD 2017-0 and DOAD 2017-1. [ 38 ] [NAME] 1, Chapter 7, at Article 7.13(b) explains why the Applicant’s grievance did not go through an Initial Authority but went directly to the Final Authority. [ 39 ] [NAME] 15.17(7) provides that the retention of a non-commissioned member beyond the date on which he would otherwise be released may be authorized by the CDS. The retention of a [NAME] member after their CRA is therefore, at the discretion of the CDS. [ 40 ] The NAVRES Interim Guidance for Request for Extension of Service Beyond Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) Process [NAVRES Interim Guidance] describes, at paragraph 1, that a [NAME] member may be retained beyond CRA 60 when extenuating operational requirements exist. Approval authority for retention requests, for Non-Commissioned Members [NCM] and for officers of the rank of [NAME] (N) and below rests with the CDS (citing [NAME] 15.17 Release of Officers – Age and Length of Service and [NAME] 31 Release of Non-Commissioned Members – Age and Length of Service). This applies to the Applicant, whose rank was [NAME] at the relevant time. [ 41 ] Requests for extension of service beyond CRA are to be submitted, as indicated in the administrative process found in the NAVRES Interim Guidance, “through the chain of command for CDS approval. Support for requests for extension beyond CRA will be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account critical operational requirements and mitigation strategies” (NAVRES Interim Guidance at para 2). [ 42 ] The NAVRES Interim Guidance also describes the various stages in the administrative process when a [NAME] member wishes to apply to extend their CRA. [ 43 ] Both parties also referred to CANFORGEN 050/20. This directive was directly tied to COVID-19 and was cancelled in May 2021 (the Applicant’s third request to extend his CRA was submitted on January 19, 2021). B. The Matter is not Moot [ 44 ] The Respondent also argued that the matter is moot, as the requested CRA extension date of August 2025, has now passed, making any remedy nugatory or of no effect. [ 45 ] The Applicant challenges this argument, asserting that the Final Authority Decision was issued only in May 2025 - almost two and a half years after his final communication with [NAME], and cannot benefit from the delay it has created to assert mootness. If the Final Authority had rendered a decision sooner, he would have been able to serve the additional time. Therefore, there continues to be a live dispute between the parties. [ 46 ] I have determined that the matter is not moot. [ 47 ] In the Applicant’s case, it took over two years for the Final Authority to issue its Decision, which was issued with only three months left before the requested CRA date of August 2025. While there may have been uncertainty whether the Applicant was sending additional submissions that could have contributed to the delay, the ability to issue a decision was within the control of the Final Authority. The [NAME] cannot delay releasing its decision and then rely on this delay to argue that the matter is moot or the remedy nugatory to escape scrutiny of judicial review. Indeed, if the decision had been released earlier, the Applicant could also have sought judicial review well before the expiry of the requested CRA date. I am also not convinced that there would be no possible remedy, as the Court can still issue a Declaration if I had found that the Final Authority Decision was unreasonable. [ 48 ] As such, I will examine the Final Authority Decision on its merits in the following paragraphs. C. There was No Breach of Procedural Fairness [ 49 ] The Applicant submits that the Final Authority Decision is procedurally unfair because he was not given a final chance to make written submissions before the decision was rendered, was not provided with a draft decision for comment, and did not have access to unredacted ATIP documents when making his submissions in response to the MGERC’s Findings and Recommendations. The Applicant asserts that he was surprised when he received the Final Authority Decision on May 9, 2025. He had believed that he would be permitted to present additional submissions and was not given any opportunity to do so. [ 50 ] The Respondent conceded during the hearing that it would have been ideal for the Applicant to receive a final warning before the Final Authority Decision was issued. However, the Respondent highlights the factual context supports that there was no breach of procedural fairness. [ 51 ] Namely, the Applicant had already made two submissions in 2022, in response to the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. Afterwards, the Applicant indicated to [NAME] that he was hoping to provide more information arising from his ATIP requests but never submitted anything. The Respondent submits that the Applicant omitted the fact that [NAME] had followed up with him on January 20, 2023, with no clear response on his part. In the following two and a half years, the Applicant did not communicate further with [NAME], nor did he provide any additional documents or submissions. [ 52 ] The Respondent submits that while the Applicant has been critical of the two and a half years that it took the Final Authority to render a decision, this was also a period during which he could have presented any other additional documents or submissions but did not do so. Even on judicial review, the Applicant has not identified what other documents or submissions he was unable to present. In the overall context of this case, the Respondent submits that there was no breach of procedural fairness. [ 53 ] I agree with the Respondent’s submissions. [ 54 ] When [NAME] reached out to the Applicant on January 20, 2023, to confirm whether he would be providing further representations to be presented to the Final Authority, his response did not address her inquiry. At that point in time, the Applicant had received all the documents he was lawfully allowed to obtain that were before the [NAME]. This addressed his “lack of disclosure” concerns previously expressed. The Applicant did not submit any other documents or information between January 2023 until May 2025, nor did he provide any updated timelines as was requested (and that he indicated he would do). [ 55 ] In the context of this case, the Applicant was aware why his request for an extension of the CRA was not recommended. He knew the case he had to meet, had received all relevant disclosure from the [NAME], and had a full opportunity to make further submissions in relation to his grievance. I conclude that there was no breach of procedural fairness. D. The Final Authority Decision is not Unreasonable [ 56 ] The Applicant submits that the Final Authority’s conclusion that there were no operational requirements or exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the CRA is completely unfounded. He submits that he provided documentation demonstrating that the [NAME] is experiencing a significant and critical staffing crisis, that there is a need for individuals with the Applicant’s skillset, and that he can still fulfill that role. He asserts that the [NAME]’s recommendation was passed over in favour of his CO’s refusal to support his extension request, in deviation from the applicable policy. [ 57 ] The Applicant also asserts that the CO’s negative view of him tainted the views and conclusions of all decision-makers who were involved in his extension application. He attributes this to an incident between the CO and himself in May 2021, and his subsequent discovery following an ATIP request that his CO had prepared a letter dated January 20, 2021, about a complaint involving him. The Applicant submits that the CO’s justification to refuse recommending his extension had been wholesale copied in the Final Authority Decision, without any engagement with any evidence that supported or contradicted the CO’s conclusions. [ 58 ] The Respondent submits that the Final Authority Decision is reasonable. The Applicant’s disagreement on the operational assessments of the [NAME] and the specific [NAME] unit does not mean that the Decision is unreasonable. The Respondent submits that it was reasonable for the Final Authority to conclude that there was no exceptional need or operational requirement to extend the Applicant’s service beyond his CRA. The relevant consideration is the specific person, their abilities and the specific time of the application. The Respondent submits that the record before the Final Authority does not contradict their conclusions, and it was open to the Final Authority to rely on the fact that the Applicant’s [NAME] did not support his last request to extend his CRA. [ 59 ] I recognize that the Applicant contends that the Final Authority Decision caused him to be released in September 2021, that he “lost his job” , and that he wished to remain in service. He contends that he could still fulfil a role despite the [NAME]’s position that there were no operational requirements justifying an extension of his CRA. [ 60 ] However, a reviewing court on judicial review must start by considering the reasons in light of the evidence, taking into account the particular context of the decision ( [NAME] at para 94). A reviewing court must take a “reasons first” approach by examining the reasons provided with “respectful attention,” in which the Court seeks to understand the reasoning process followed by the [NAME] for drawing its conclusion and whether it was “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the [NAME]” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 58, 60; [NAME] at paras 84−85). [ 61 ] The case law is also clear that a decision of the CDS (or Final Authority) is entitled to a high degree of deference on judicial review ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2016 FCA 157 at para 14 [ [NAME] ]). This is due to the highly specialized nature of the [NAME] grievance process and the particular expertise of the CDS who routinely make decisions in their areas of expertise ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2023 FC 1252 at para 66, citing [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2012 FC 101 at para 49, and [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2016 FC 1299 at para 30). [ 62 ] I have considered the Applicant’s assertions on the reasonableness of the Decision, and his assertions relating to the various policies he identified. [ 63 ] First, the Applicant relies on CANFORGEN 050/20, stating that extension requests for members who will reach the CRA age 60 before release would be processed “expeditiously” to ensure no gap in pay nor services. He asserts that the [NAME] did not process his file expeditiously. [ 64 ] However, the Applicant’s request was submitted on January 19, 2021, and went through the proper channels with a communication of the CRA Decision around July 21, 2021. The Applicant was released on September 15, 2021 (after an extension of 30 days to allow for proper transition from his originally scheduled release date of August 7, 2021). I was presented with no basis to conclude that the process was “not expeditious” given that there was no evidence presented that the Applicant experienced a gap in pay or services based on his September 2021 release date. [ 65 ] The Applicant contends that the NAVRES Interim Guidance demonstrates that the [NAME]’s recommendation is determinative. He states that the NAVRES Interim Guidance is clear that if the [NAME] recommends an extension, this should be submitted to the next levels by email. By preferring the CO’s assessment, the Applicant argues that the NAVRES Interim Guidance was not followed and the [NAME]’s recommendation was improperly disregarded. He submits that the error in disregarding the [NAME]’s recommendation and improperly relying on the CO’s refusal flowed first through the application and then the grievance process, including to the MGERC. This resulted in the Final Authority relying on a flawed conclusion in denying his grievance. [ 66 ] However, upon review, I cannot agree with his characterization of the NAVRES Interim Guidance as it relates to the [NAME]’s recommendation. [ 67 ] The stage in the NAVRES Interim Guidance that the Applicant has identified, occurs after the submission of the extension application, and describes the [NAME] “Actions” . The relevant section of the document includes a table with four bullet points describing the relevant actions for this part of the process. [ 68 ] Under the “File review, drafting and furtherance of concurrence by [NAME]/Succession Plan (SP)” stage, the [NAME] is to “[assess] operational requirements (in consultation with the unit or others, as required) and [determine] whether the additional year is essential and whether exceptional circumstances exist” . The next bullet point in this stage of the process describes that the [NAME] is to “obtain concurrence/non-concurrence from Officer/NCM Succession Planner and from A/COS Careers/PCC(Q) CO.” The third provides, if the extension is recommended, that the [NAME] “submits recommendations to NRES (by email)” . The fourth bullet point relates to where an extension is not recommended. In that event, the [NAME] is to “[inform] the member that there is no operational requirement justifying that an extension request be initiated (while keeping the [NAME] informed).” [ 69 ] The NAVRES Interim Guidance specifies that engagement of the [NAME] is required. In the Applicant’s case, this was done, as confirmed in an email from a Senior Staff Officer dated February 16, 2021, forwarding the [NAME]’s recommendation to the Applicant’s [NAME]. In that email, the Officer communicated that “[NAME] is recommending. Before staffing this request to CDS via NAVRES cabinet and RCN, I need both CO’s concurrence and [NAME]) endorsement also.” This is consistent with the NAVRES Interim Guidance. [ 70 ] I agree with the Respondent’s submission that while the [NAME] plays a role in the recommendation for an extension, it is not determinative on its own. Rather, there needs to be concurrence from the Applicant’s [NAME] as well as the CMP. With respect, the CO’s concurrence (or not) is one of many relevant opinions to be considered. [ 71 ] The Applicant contends that he has not been treated with dignity or honour. He believes that the CO’s opinion of him shifted after the events in May 2021. He believes that the CO’s lack of support is a form of reprisal that spread to others involved in the decision-making process and resulted in his extension being refused. [ 72 ] With respect, based on the record before the Court, I cannot conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support his contention that this was the basis of the CO’s refusal to support his extension application. [ 73 ] The Final Authority recognized the Applicant’s concern that the CO’s input overshadowed the [NAME]’s input. The Final Authority Decision grappled with the Applicant’s contention, acknowledged that the [NAME] supported his request and his position that the [NAME]’s recommendation should have been given more weight. It also considered the Applicant’s skillset and abilities. The Final Authority explained why it arrived at the conclusion that there were “no exceptional need or operational requirement to extend the service further” . [ 74 ] Based on the legal constraints that apply to an extension of a CRA, the Final Authority not giving the [NAME]’s recommendation more weight does not cause its decision to be unreasonable. The Applicant’s argument on judicial review is essentially that the [NAME]’s recommendation ought to have been given more weight than the CO’s. However, reweighing evidence is not the Court’s role on judicial review. [ 75 ] The Applicant further contends that the Final Authority improperly relied on the MGERC Findings and Recommendations and that the MGERC and the Final Authority simply adopted the CO’s assessment without independent analysis. [ 76 ] The Respondent underlines the Final Authority is not bound by the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. It is also entitled to adopt the MGERC’s analysis without providing any reasons. Reasons are only required if the Final Authority departs from the MGERC Findings and Recommendations (citing section 29.13 of the Act). [ 77 ] The Final Authority does rely, to some extent, on the MGERC Findings and Recommendations. However, the Final Authority Decision also sets out their own reasons, explaining why it rejected the Applicant’s grievance. [ 78 ] Moreover, although the MGERC Findings and Recommendations are not under review, neither they nor the Final Authority simply imported the CO’s assessment without independent analysis. Both rely on and cite the Briefing Note. As stated previously, the Briefing Note considered the staffing needs of NAVRES as a whole, the Applicant's unit, funding and budget considerations as well as the unit's identified priorities. It was therefore not unreasonable for the MGERC and the Final Authority to rely on the Briefing Note in addition to the CO's opinion. [ 79 ] I also appreciate that the Applicant considers the use of the phrase “no critical operational requirements or exceptional circumstances” or that he is “not filling a critical need” to be offensive and an improper justification to refuse his request for an extension of his release date. However, this terminology is used in the applicable directives and policies with respect to CRA extensions. They are the applicable and relevant criteria that would justify the CDS to retain a [NAME] member after their mandatory retirement age. As such, I cannot fault the Final Authority’s use of these terms. [ 80 ] The Applicant contends that the evidence he submitted demonstrated that the [NAME] was experiencing an “operational human resources crisis” . He claims that every person he spoke with who was knowledgeable within [NAME], agreed with him. Here, the Applicant relies on a “Weekly SITREP of the [NAME]” , dated June 24, 2021, that stated that as of June 21, 2021, the total strength of the [NAME] is 4106 individuals, with a total active membership of 4044 members. Another “WEEKLY SITREP of the [NAME]” dated September 21, 2021, identified that the [NAME] was operating at a 42.5% effective strength. The Applicant also pointed to a speech given by the CDS in October 2021 after the summer training season, stating that the [NAME] was only able to grow their numbers by 9 sailors, being a 0.1% of growth. [ 81 ] The Applicant submits that this evidence demonstrated that the [NAME] are seriously understaffed, undermining the CO’s assertion – and all of the conclusions that followed – that there were no “operational requirements or exceptional circumstances” to support his extension request. As such, the continued use of the terms “no critical operational requirements or exceptional circumstances” is unfounded and calls into question the conclusions in the Final Authority Decision. [ 82 ] The Respondent correctly identified that the default is that [NAME] members are required to retire at the age of 60. To obtain an extension of their service is an exceptional circumstance, which must be justified by the CDS. [ 83 ] The relevant legal constraints are also clear that an extension of a CRA is at the discretion of the CDS. An extension request is therefore not a guarantee that an extension must be granted and that any decision to extend a CRA or not must be considered on a case-by-case basis. In sum, generalizations are not sufficient. [ 84 ] The Applicant’s arguments on judicial review do not identify reviewable errors that warrant the Court’s intervention. To accept the Applicant’s arguments would require the Court to consider the same evidence and arguments before the Final Authority and to arrive at a different and more favourable conclusion. On judicial review, the Court cannot reconsider or reweigh the evidence to assess whether the decision is unreasonable. [ 85 ] It was open to the Final Authority to rely on the MGERC Findings and Recommendations, which in turn considered the assessment by the Applicant’s [NAME], the Briefing Note signed by the CMP, in addition to operational requirements for the [NAME] in question. The conclusions rendered by the Final Authority with respect to staffing and operational requirements also fall within a specialized scope of expertise. This warrants deference unless the Court determines that there has been a fundamental misapprehension of evidence. [ 86 ] Despite the Applicant’s vigorous arguments, I cannot find that the evidence in the record squarely contradicts the conclusions in the Final Authority Decision. Furthermore, I cannot agree that the Final Authority has misapprehended the evidence or arguments that he submitted. [ 87 ] The Final Authority Decision bears the characteristics of a reasonable decision, that is, it is intelligible, transparent and justified. [ADDRESS] can connect the dots between the Decision and the record that was before the [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 97). Based on the record before it, the Final Authority Decision rejecting the grievance following a refusal to extend a CRA is one of the “possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” ( [NAME] at para 86; [NAME] at para 14). [ 88 ] Finally, the MGERC, the Final Authority and the Respondent have all underlined that the Applicant’s willingness to serve after his mandatory retirement age is commendable and admirable. I also echo this, and my conclusions in this Judgment are not intended to minimize the Applicant’s contributions and years of service. However, based on the Court’s role on judicial review, I cannot conclude that the decision-making process was unfair or that the Final Authority Decision was unreasonable.

V. Conclusion [ 89 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The Decision meets the hallmarks of reasonableness, being coherent and rational in its analysis of the evidence and arguments provided. [ 90 ] The parties confirmed that neither are seeking costs, and I agree that this is reasonable in the circumstances.

JUDGMENT in T-2221-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: t-2221-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v [NAME] OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: ST. [NAME]’S, NEWFOUNDLAND DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 16, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: NGO J. DATED: JULY 7, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Halifax (Nova Scotia) For The RESPONDENT