Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Small Vessel Certification Requirements

Date: 20260714 Docket: T-2995-25 Citation: 2026 FC 942 Ottawa, Ontario, July 14, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF [NAME] and THE [NAME] OF CANADA Respondent

REASONS AND JUGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], who is self-represented, seeks judicial review of what he describes in his Notice of Application as being “in respect of [NAME]'s position regarding the certification requirements for operators of the Applicant’s small commercial vessels (workboat/salvage operations under 5 [gross tonnage]) on the Great Lakes in Ontario.” [ 2 ] The relief that he seeks is as follows:

1. A declaration clarifying whether, under the [NAME] , SOR/2007-115, operators of the Applicant's commercially registered vessels (which are under 5 gross tonnage, used for marine assistance, salvage, and environmental response, with incidental towing) are legally required to hold a Master, Limited certificate (<60 GT), or whether the Small Vessel Operator Proficiency (SVOP) certificate remains legally sufficient.

2. In the alternative, an order granting a minimum of twelve (12) months to transition to any higher certification requirement found to apply, without interruption to operations.

3. An order that this application be expedited, in light of the seasonal nature of operations and the current inability to obtain insurance coverage pending clarification.

4. Such further or other relief as this [ADDRESS] may permit. [ 3 ] On August 29, 2025, the Applicant requested, by way of motion, that this application be dealt with in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR /98-106 [Rules]. By letter dated September 5, 2025, the Respondent consented to the Applicant’s request. Preliminary Matters i. Named Respondent [ 4 ] The Respondent submits that the Applicant has incorrectly named the Minister of [NAME] as the Respondent in this matter. That is because the Minister of [NAME] is not a person directly affected by the order sought, nor is he required to be named under an Act of [NAME]. As there are no persons that can be named under Rule 303(1) of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR /98-106, the proper respondent is the [NAME] of Canada (Rule 303(2)). The Respondent requests that the style of cause be amended by changing the named respondent from the Minister of [NAME] to the [NAME]. [ 5 ] In prior communications to the Court that the Respondent included in its Record, the Applicant expressed his disagreement with the Respondent’s position. He expressed the view that subsection 7(2) of the Department of [NAME] Act , RSC 1985, c T-18, defines the Minister as the authority responsible for exercising powers, duties, and functions related to marine safety and personnel certification. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 , SC 2001, c 26 [ CSA 2001 ] and the [NAME] , SOR/2007-115 – central to this dispute – are administered through that Minister. [ 6 ] The Applicant stated his view that this judicial review challenges the manner in which [NAME] applied or interpreted the [NAME] as they pertain to the Applicant’s operation. As such, the Minister of [NAME] is the proper party to be named, as the one “seized with the enactment or administration” of the disputed provision. Further, that this approach is consistent with Rule 303 and the longstanding practice where a Minister is named directly in judicial review proceedings in their capacity as the governing authority over the legislation at issue. [ 7 ] The Applicant added, should the Court nonetheless prefer that the style of cause be amended to refer to the [NAME] of Canada on behalf of the Minister, the Applicant was amenable to such direction. However, the substantive capacity of the Minister as the governing authority should remain clearly identified in the record. [ 8 ] I first note that the naming of the proper respondent is a purely procedural matter that has no impact on the merits or outcome of the application ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] , 2026 FC 171 at para 25; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2022 FCA 56 at para 11; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2026 FC 704 at para 11). [ 9 ] Rule 303(1)(a) states that persons directly affected by the order sought in an application are to be named as a respondent (see also [COMPANY] v [NAME] , 2013 FCA 236 at paras 18-21). In this application, the Applicant seeks declaratory relief regarding the certification required for his operations. In my view, it is at least arguable that if the requested declaratory relief were granted, then that this would have a direct affect on the Minister’s legal obligations (see, for example [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2025 FC 1696 at paras 22-34). That said, out of an abundance of caution, I [NAME] add the [NAME] as a respondent in this matter (Rule 303(2); [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2024 FC 1057 at paras 1-3; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2020 FC 578 at paras 51-52). ii. Certified Tribunal Record [ 10 ] The Applicant, in his Notice of Application, made a Rule 317 request for a certified copy of any and all records in the Minister's possession that were considered in forming, communicating, or relying upon the position that a Master, Limited for a vessel of less than 60 gross tonnage certificate [Master, Limited <60GT] is required for the Applicant's operations. [ 11 ] The Respondent’s Application Record includes a letter to the Court from counsel for the Respondent, dated September 5, 2025, objecting to the Rule 317 request, pursuant to Rule 318(2), on the basis “that the decision described in the Notice of Application – an alleged communication by [NAME] – did not occur.” Counsel submitted that as there was no decision, Rule 317 had no application. However, by letter dated September 16, 2025, counsel for the Respondent advised that they had subsequently been advised by [NAME] that the communication by [NAME] did, in fact, exist. Therefore, their initial objection was no longer relied upon. Instead, the Respondent maintained its objection pursuant to Rule 318(2) on the amended basis that the Applicant’s judicial review application does not challenge an “order” within the meaning of Rule 317 or seek remedies pertaining to one. Rather, it seeks only declaratory relief. Counsel for the Respondent stated because the Applicant does not seek remedies pertaining to an existing order, Rule 317 does not apply. [ 12 ] By letter dated September 16, 2025, the Applicant responded to the amended Rule 318(2) objection. The Applicant asserted that the Respondent’s position misconstrued the scope and purpose of the proceeding. The communication at issue – whether formally styled as an “order” or not – had real legal and financial consequences, including the refusal by the Applicant’s insurance underwriter to renew the operational coverage required for his business to function. That communication was made by a [NAME] official exercising regulatory authority, and effectively re-characterized his business operations as requiring a Master, Limited <60GT certificate, a position he believed to be unsupported by the legislative framework.

Accordingly, the application for judicial review sought to challenge the lawfulness and interpretive scope of that communication and its basis in the applicable statutes and regulations. The absence of a formal “order” did not preclude review where, as here, administrative action results in binding legal effect. The Applicant maintained that the materials relied upon by [NAME] in forming and asserting that position, which were conveyed to third parties without notice to the Applicant, are appropriately the subject of a Rule 317 request. [ 13 ] In its written materials filed in response to this application for judicial review, the Respondent states that although the Applicant in his above letter responded to the objection, he did not pursue the issue by way of a motion. [ 14 ] Pursuant to Rule 318(3), the Court may give directions to the parties and to the tribunal as to the procedure for making submissions under Rule 318(2). And, pursuant to Rule 318(4), after hearing such submissions, the Court may order that the subject materials be sent to the Registry. This matter was case managed. By order dated January 6, 2026, the Case Management Judge set out the timeline for the conduct of this proceeding which included the filing of and cross-examination on affidavits, the filing of the records and the filing of a request that the matter be determined in writing in lieu of a requisition for hearing. That order makes no mention of the Respondent’s Rule 318(2) objection or how it was to be resolved. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and regardless of whether or not the Respondent validly objected to providing a Certified Tribunal Record [CTR], it would appear that the issue of the production of a CTR was not pursued. That said, there is relevant documentation attached as exhibits to each of the two affidavits filed by the parties. Affidavit Evidence [ 15 ] The Applicant has filed his affidavit sworn or affirmed on February 2, 2026, and attaching exhibits [Applicant’s Affidavit]. The Respondent has filed an affidavit of [NAME], Manager of [COMPANY], sworn on February 27, 2026, also attaching exhibits [[NAME]]. There were no cross-examinations on these affidavits. Background [ 16 ] The factual background to this matter is largely not in dispute and is demonstrated by the correspondence attached as exhibits to the filed affidavits. [ 17 ] The Applicant operates a small commercial marine service business providing emergency assistance, environmental protection, recovery, salvage, and related marine services in Ontario waters. The Applicant operates with small commercial vessels under 5 gross tonnage [GT], which are registered with [NAME] as workboats. The Applicant’s undisputed evidence is that towing can occur incidentally as part of his operation. [ 18 ] When he was planning the commencement of his operation, the Applicant sent an email to [NAME] requesting guidance. By reply email of the same date, March 16, 2011, he was advised that if his vessel was not being used primarily as a tug then it would be considered a workboat. [ 19 ] It is perhaps helpful to pause here to note that, with respect to marine personnel, section 87 of the CSA 2001 , requires every person who is employed onboard a Canadian vessel in a position in respect of which a certificate is required under Part 3 (Personnel), to hold the required certificate and to comply with its terms and conditions. Those certification requirements are set out in the [NAME] . Based on the Applicant’s description of his operation, the certification requirements applicable to his vessel operators are prescribed by section 212 of the [NAME] , Table 1, item 18. Specifically, that operators of vessels up to 5 GT (except tugs) are required to hold a Small Vessel Operator Proficiency training certificate [SVOP]. [ 20 ] Subsection 1(1) of the [NAME] defines a “tug” as follows: tug  means a vessel used exclusively in operations associated with towing another vessel or a floating object astern or alongside or in pushing another vessel or a floating object ahead. [ 21 ] If a vessel falls within the definition of a tug, then different certification is required. Operators of tugs require a Master, Limited <60GT certificate, which is a higher certification than the SVOP certification that operators of workboats are required to have. [ 22 ] The Applicant deposes that he relied on [NAME]’s response in structuring his operations and ensuring manning compliance. In April 2013, he completed the required training and obtained a SVOP certificate. [ 23 ] The Applicant deposes that he has historically insured his vessels under commercial marine insurance policies issued by [NAME] [[NAME]] and that, prior to 2025, his insurance coverages were maintained and renewed without issue. [ 24 ] In February 2025, [NAME], Director – Marine Department, with [NAME], contacted [NAME] at [NAME]. This email states that [NAME] had received a submission from a party that owned a 16’ aluminum skiff, less than 5 GT, that was going to be pushing 20’ barges for construction work. [NAME] posed three questions including: because the barges would be moved for a commercial purpose, whether the skiff would be considered to be a tug, in which case the master would require a Master, Limited <60GT certificate. [ 25 ] By email of February 3, 2025, [NAME], a marine inspector at [NAME], Small Vessel Inspection Team, Pacific Region, responded advising, given [NAME]’s description of the intent of the vessel, that [NAME] would look at the skiff as a tug, from a regulatory perspective, as the primary purpose of the skiff is to tow [February 3 Email]. Therefore, the operator would require a Master, Limited <60GT certificate. [NAME] provided a table said to show the certificate requirements from the [NAME] and included regulatory references to the CSA 2001 and the Small Vessel Regulations , SOR/2010-91. [ 26 ] However, and as the Respondent now acknowledges, [NAME] erred in his response. He provided a table from a source other than the [NAME] . The table provided indicates the certification required for workboats of less than 5 GT, “except tugs,” and, for tugs, that a Master, Limited <60GT certificate was required. [NAME] set out the definition of a “tug” found in the Small Vessel Regulations . [ 27 ] [NAME] acknowledges in this application that the Small Vessel Regulations are concerned with vessel safety requirements, not the certification of marine personnel. [ 28 ] Under subsection 1(1) of the Small Vessel Regulations , a tug is defined differently than it is in the [NAME] . Under the Small Vessel Regulations , a tug is defined as follows: tug  means a vessel that is constructed or converted primarily for the purpose of towing, but does not include a vessel that is constructed or converted for the purpose of (a) salvaging logs; or (b) managing oil pollution booms and associated equipment. [ 29 ] On May 30, 2025, the Applicant’s insurance broker sent an email to the Applicant advising him that his insurer was seeking clarification and confirmation from the Applicant, and quoting the insurer’s inquiry in that regard: Please confirm the insured’s operator qualifications. Can the insured confirm if they only have their SVOP and MED? Do they have their limited Masters <60GT? This information is requested as [NAME] sought clarification with [NAME] regarding qualifications needed to tow vessels in Canada. [NAME] confirmed that vessels/operators engaged in towing other vessels are acting as a Tug, and to operate a Tug in Canada you need the Limited Masters <60GT at a minimum. [ 30 ] On June 9, 2025, the broker again contacted the Applicant, stating: Please see the updates received from the carrier: In our communications with [NAME], they have made it clear that any vessel that’s primary purpose is to Tow is considered a Tug from a regulatory perspective. And therefore, would require a 60GT ticket. The Canadian Government defines a Tug in the Small Vessel Regulations as the following: A Tug means a vessel that is constructed or converted primarily for the purpose of towing, but does not include a vessel that is constructed or converted for the purpose of (a) salvaging logs; or (b) managing oil pollution booms and associated equipment. I know that the insured operates a smaller vessel on sheltered water, but the services offered would classify this workboat as a Tug under the Small Vessel Regulations Please confirm with the client if the primary purpose of the vessel is to tow. [ 31 ] On June 11, 2025, the broker sent an email to the Applicant advising that [NAME] was declining to renew his prior coverage on the basis of the certification issue: I just spoke with the underwriter at [NAME], and they have advised they would require the 60-gt masters in order to maintain the policy for another term. They said they were advised by Travel [ sic ] Canada that this is a requirement and regardless of the nature of the towing operations, the vessel would be classified as a tug. I have escalated this internally within [NAME] and we do not agree with [NAME] decision and feel there is far too much grey area. Unfortunately, our rebuttal to [NAME] fell on deaf ears and they did not reconsider. This decision is not only affecting your policy but affecting a significant number of other policies within [NAME]. We are quite confused by [NAME] [ sic ] Canada’s stance on this. [NAME] advised they can quote the vessel for fire/theft coverage to maintain some type of coverage but would not offer any coverage while in operation. I’m sure you have other insurance to protect the vessels for this but if interested, let me know and ill [ sic ] have them provide me with a quote……. [ 32 ] In a further email on the same date the broker advised: Thanks for this information [NAME]. [NAME] has advised they [NAME] provide us a quote and we should have access to it by latest tomorrow. This is the direct release from the underwriter at [NAME]: For good order, the following is the position taken by [NAME]: Our position came from a conversation we had with a Marine Inspector with [NAME] and now we are classifying all vessels whose purpose is to tow as a “Tug.” And because of that a 60GT ticket would be required. The Small Vessel Regulations does not make an exception for emergency pleasure craft towing, if that was the government’s intention, it would be listed as an exclusion. So if the insured is still offering emergency pleasure craft towing, we would ask that a 60GT ticket be obtained, and if not then we would need to get off risk. We can’t offer an extension at the current terms as our position is that the insured is in breach of warranty. At best we could offer laid up hull coverage. [ 33 ] On June 12, 2025, the Applicant sent an email to [NAME] stating that he had made multiple attempts to obtain clarification from [NAME] with respect to the certification requirements for the captains operating vessels under 5 GT in the Great Lakes region in the Applicant’s operation. The email states, given the potential impact on the Applicant’s continued compliance and its ability to maintain necessary insurance coverage, that the Applicant had prepared and attached a formal letter of request. [ 34 ] I [NAME] reproduce the June 12, 2025, letter [June 12 Letter], sent by registered mail, in whole: Attention: Regional Director, Marine Safety & Security — Ontario Region Re: Request for Clarification of Certification Requirements and Transition Period —[COMPANY] Sir or Madam, I am writing on behalf of [COMPANY], a marine assistance, salvage, and recovery operator based in Windsor Ontario, operating on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. Our vessels are registered as Workboat / Salvage / Search and Rescue, all under 5 GT. Our services focus on: ● Providing breakdown assistance and salvage to disabled recreational vessels (typically 1 2' to 50') in distress. ● Recovery operations as part of our public-interest mission under Canada’s obligations under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act and the 1989 Salvage Convention. ● Supporting marine environmental protection and Search and Rescue (SAR) operations when required. Prior Guidance from [NAME] At the time of establishing [COMPANY], I proactively sought guidance from [NAME] regarding certification requirements for our captains. I attach a copy of the written response received from [NAME] ([NAME], Acting Manager, Inspection Services, Sarnia) , in which I was advised: "Refer to requirements for a tug if your boat is to be used primarily for towing. Otherwise it [NAME] be considered to be a workboat... PCOC is sufficient to operate this boat." On the basis of this advice, we structured our business and compliance program accordingly, later transitioning to SVOP + MED A3 certification in line with evolving requirements for Workboats under 5 GT. We have operated in full compliance with this guidance for over 15 years. Recent Changes and Industry Concerns We are now aware that [NAME] has issued TP 15491E — Tug Guidance Notes (June 2024), which appears to expand the application of Master 60 GT certification requirements to small vessel towing operations. It is unclear whether this new interpretation [NAME] now be applied to operators like us who provide salvage and emergency assistance, rather than routine commercial tug/towing services. We are concerned that the application of this new interpretation — particularly in light of our long-standing reliance on prior written advice — may: • Trigger non-compliance findings without formal notice; • Result in cancellation of insurance coverage if no formal transition period is provided; • Be applied in a manner that disregards the public-interest salvage and emergency nature of our services, which are clearly consistent with Canada's obligations under the Wrecked Vessels Act and the Salvage Convention. Request for Clarification and Transition In light of the above, we respectfully request that [NAME] provide:

1 . Written confirmation of the current expectations regarding certification of captains operating vessels under 5 GT performing salvage and emergency assistance operations, including break-down towing of recreational vessels larger than the towboat itself.

2. Acknowledgment of our prior reliance on [NAME]’s written guidance and our 15+ years of compliant operation.

3. A reasonable transition period if it is now determined that Master 60 GT certification [NAME] be required for certain aspects of our operation.

4. Written confirmation that during this transition period: o Our operations [NAME] be considered compliant if performed under existing SVOP + MED A3 certification; o No penalties or enforcement action [NAME] be taken provided we operate within our historic scope of services; o Such confirmation may be provided to our insurance providers to ensure uninterrupted coverage during the transition.

5. Recognition that as a seasonal operator, we cannot reasonably require key personnel to be away from operations for extended out-of-town training during the peak operating season (spring through fall). We request that any transition requirements respect this operational reality and allow for compliance to be phased in during the off-season where practical. We remain fully committed to operating in compliance with Canadian marine safety requirements and to providing services that support public safety, marine environmental protection, and salvage of vessels in distress. We would greatly appreciate your timely written response to this request so that we may ensure continued compliance and maintain our necessary insurance coverages. Should you wish to discuss this further, I can be reach directly at [PHONE] any time that is convenient to you. [emphasis original] [ 35 ] By email of June 12, 2025, the Applicant requested his broker to inform [NAME] of the June 12 Letter. The broker responded that they would do so but, as the Applicant’s current insurance policy was due to renew on June 14, 2025, it was unlikely that a response would be received by then. [NAME] had provided a quote of “laid up basis” only. [ 36 ] By email of June 17, 2025, [NAME], Regional Director, Marine Safety and Security, [NAME], Ontario Region, replied to the June 12 Letter. This response included that: Regarding certification, the [NAME] define a tug as: “ tug means a vessel used exclusively in operations associated with towing another vessel or a floating object astern or alongside or in pushing another vessel or a floating object ahead.” If any of your vessels are used exclusively as tugs, the operator must hold a Master Limited certificate. Please provide further details on your fleet, including registration numbers and photos. This [NAME] help us confirm the appropriate certification requirements for your operations. You may also consider submitting an application to the [NAME] ([NAME]), which— if approved— may allow for the use of a lower certification level. Please note that approval is not guaranteed and is subject to multi-level review. Past positive decisions are available for reference and may assist in preparing your application. Additionally, I have attached the Small Commercial Vessel Safety Guide for your reference and encourage you to consider enrolling in the Small Vessel Compliance Program (SVCP). A promotional postcard is also attached for your convenience. Participation in SVCP supports safer operations and helps ensure regulatory compliance. Lastly, please be aware that operating a commercial vessel with an SVOP (Small Vessel Operator Proficiency) certificate may be non-compliant if the vessel’s activity or configuration requires a Master Limited certificate (CL<60). Should you have any further questions or require assistance with documentation, please don’t hesitate to reach out. [emphasis original] [ 37 ] The Applicant responded by email on June 18, 2025: Thank you for your response and for taking the time to review our inquiry. The vessel in question operates as a marine assistance and salvage support vessel, and is registered as a commercial vessel under registration number C35781ON. A current photo is attached, as requested. We are a fully commercial operation and do not function under the Coast Guard Auxiliary model. Our services include: • Fuel delivery, • Battery boosting, • Navigational support, • Recovery of partially or fully submerged vessels, • Collection of surface contaminants and environmental protection response, • Underwater scanning and surveying, and • Breakdown towing as well as towing which is incidental to our broader marine assistance and recovery operations. As such, the vessel is not used exclusively for towing, and we understand that this distinction is central to the current interpretation under the [NAME] . When the company was established, we sought guidance from [NAME] and were advised that a Pleasure Craft Operator Card (PCOC) was adequate for our planned operations. Nonetheless, we voluntarily implemented a higher standard by requiring SVOP + MED A3 certification for our operators. We have operated under this standard in good faith for more than a decade. We are reviewing the Small Vessel Compliance Program (SVCP) and understand that, at the time of its introduction, it was presented as voluntary. If [NAME] now considers our activities to fall under the “tug” classification and intends to require a Master, Limited 60 GT certificate, we would appreciate a formal clarification. We also note that such a shift would raise important enforcement consistency concerns regarding foreign-flagged towboats operating in Canadian waters— an issue that has long been discussed within our industry. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further by phone, and would also be interested in exploring a possible application to the [NAME] ([NAME]) if required to maintain compliance while we plan for any transition. Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate the follow-up and look forward to continuing the conversation. [ 38 ] [NAME] responded by email on July 7, 2025, from [NAME]: [NAME], Thank you for your correspondence and for the detailed overview of your vessel’s operations. I have reviewed the particulars of vessel C35781 ON, including its registration status, declared activities, and technical specifications, and offer the following regulatory guidance in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA), the [NAME] ([NAME]), and [NAME]’s applicable compliance frameworks. Vessel Classification and Certification Framework According to [NAME]’s vessel registry, C35781ON is registered as a Workboat / Salvage / Search and Rescue vessel with the following particulars: • Gross Tonnage: 4.99 GT • Length: 7.01 metres • Construction Material : Fiberglass In view of its classification and tonnage, the following provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) and associated [NAME] guidance apply:

1. Applicable Certificate of [NAME] 212 • Under Section 212 of the [NAME], operators of vessels not more than 5 GT (excluding tugs) engaged in commercial service are required to hold at minimum a Small Vessel Operator Proficiency (SVOP) certificate. • C35781ON, by virtue of its registered role and dimensions, currently qualifies under this provision so long as it is not operating as a tug as defined in the [NAME].

2. Towing Activities and Operational Thresholds • The [NAME] defines a tug as a vessel used exclusively in operations involving the towing or pushing of another vessel or object. • However, where towing is undertaken as a routine or significant element of broader workboat operations— including breakdown assistance, salvage recovery, or repositioning— a higher standard of certification may be deemed necessary. • In such instances, the appropriate certificate would be a Master, Limited for vessels under 60 GT, issued for a specified vessel and geographic area of operation.

3. Existing Certification and SVCP Considerations You’ve noted that your operators maintain SVOP + MED A3 certification. This meets the requirement for vessels under 5 GT not engaged in towing and is commendable as a proactive risk mitigation measure. However, it is important to clarify: • SVOP is insufficient where towing becomes a regular component of commercial activity, regardless of whether the vessel is formally registered as a tug. • For further reference, [NAME] publication TP14070 contains a summary chart outlining minimum certification levels by vessel class and tonnage.

4. Small Vessel Compliance Program (SVCP) Although participation in the SVCP remains voluntary, it is strongly encouraged for all small commercial vessels: • Enrollment ensures adherence to technical and operational safety standards. • It enhances regulatory transparency, readiness for inspection, and facilitates a documented safety framework.

5. Applicability of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Where regulatory compliance presents operational hardship, the [NAME] may be an appropriate avenue for relief. 5.1 [NAME]: • The [NAME] may grant exemptions or equivalencies under the CSA to commercial vessels that cannot feasibly meet specific regulatory provisions. • SVCP-enrolled vessels are eligible to apply for [NAME] consideration. 5.2 [NAME] for SVCP Vessels: • Alternative crew certification proposals (e.g., SVOP + supplementary training in lieu of Master, Limited <60 GT). • Modified requirements for stability, structural standards, or safety equipment, where operational limitations are demonstrable. 5.3 Conditions for [NAME]: • Vessel must be commercially registered/enrolled in SVCP . • Applicant must present evidence of impracticality in meeting the regulation as written. • A clear equivalency plan must be submitted that ensures an equivalent or superior level of safety. Please note: [NAME] decisions are discretionary, subject to technical and legal review, and are not guaranteed.

5. Port Operations and Local Requirements ……. [emphasis original] [ 39 ] The Applicant responded by email on July 8, 2025, stating that while he appreciated the contextual guidance provided in the July 7, 2025 email, he sought definitive confirmation of whether his current operation, vessel registration, and crew certification are compliant with the [NAME] , and that no further certification is presently required. With respect to [NAME]’s statement that “a higher standard of certification may be deemed necessary where towing is undertaken as a routine or significant element of broader workboat operations” the Applicant stated that this appears to introduce subjective enforcement interpretation rather than a codified legal threshold. The [NAME] defines “tug” strictly and explicitly, and does not provide for discretionary escalation of certification requirements where a vessel is not used exclusively for towing, is not constructed or registered as a tug, and operates under 5 GT. [ 40 ] The Applicant stated that if [NAME] interprets the [NAME] to create new thresholds beyond the language of the statute, that this position be clearly stated in writing with supporting legal authority. Further, with respect to SVCP enrollment and [NAME] [[NAME]] pathways, while the Applicant was open to proactive compliance tools, he did not accept the implication that SVCP enrolment is now a prerequisite to regulatory clarity, or that the [NAME] process is the only means of establishing his obligations under law. The Applicant stated that he was not seeking an exemption at this time. Rather, he was seeking clarity regarding the current, enforceable regulatory obligation, not discretionary or voluntary programs, nor interpretive flexibility. [ 41 ] [NAME] of [NAME] responded by email on August 5, 2025. The email states the provisions of the [NAME] that relate to the minimum safe manning of vessels, recognize four types of vessels: Passenger, Cargo, Tug and Fishing. In order to determine the level of certificate required for a crew member and regardless of the vessel type that appears in the registry certificate, [NAME] has to enter the regulations using one of the above four vessel types, based on the usage of the vessel. For a vessel, such as the C35781ON, the requirements for a master when operating on Sheltered Waters voyages are set out in an included table. The email notes that when operating as a tug, item numbers 18 (SVOP) & 19 (PCOC) are not available. That is, for operators of vessels up to 5GT (except tugs) a SVOP training certificate is required. [ 42 ] Unsatisfied with this response, the Applicant responded by email on August 5, 2025. There he indicated that he was unsure that the regulations were written to sway with the use of the vessel when it clearly describes a “tug” as being used “exclusively for towing.” The Applicant’s boats, specifically the one previously offered for example, performs many duties, towing is only a portion which is routinely performed on vessels that are in need of assistance. The Applicant states that his workboats do not fit the legal definition of a “tug” and asks if [NAME] is implying that despite the legal definition, the Applicant is being held to a misclassification due to the lack of a “workboat designation.” The Applicant also states that he is currently out of business because his insurance is un-renewable because of this issue. [ 43 ] [NAME] of [NAME] then responded by email on September 10, 2025 [September 10 Email]: I write further to your request that [NAME] provide a determination as to whether your operations are compliant with the [NAME], SOR/2007-115. [NAME] does not, and cannot, provide a determination in response to requests regarding what certifications a specific vessel or operation requires because it is not equipped to obtain or confirm the required information to do so, which would require a fulsome assessment including prolonged in-person inspections. Further, nothing in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, SC 2001, c 26 or [NAME] requires or authorizes [NAME] to make such a determination in response to requests. However, I can provide clarification regarding an email you received from [NAME] on July 7, 2025. In that email, [NAME] stated: 1 . “where towing is undertaken as a routine or significant element of broader workboat operations - including breakdown assistance, salvage recovery, or repositioning - a higher standard of certification may be necessary”; and 2. “SVOP is insufficient where towing becomes a regular component of commercial activity, regardless of whether the vessel is formally registered as a tug .” [NAME]’s statements above reflect planned changes to the regulations that are not yet in force. Those statements do not reflect the [NAME], SOR/2007-115 , currently in force, which provide that an SVOP is sufficient for an operator of a vessel up to 5 gross tonnage, provided it is not a tug (Table 1). Tugs are defined in the regulations as “a vessel used exclusively in operations associated with towing another vessel or a floating object astern or alongside or in pushing another vessel or a floating object ahead.” The fact that an SVOP is sufficient for an operator of a vessel up to 5 gross tonnage, provided it is not a tug, was previously communicated to you on August 5, 2025, in an email from [NAME]. This reflects the regulations currently in force. Additionally, [NAME] does not communicate with insurance companies and has not done so in relation to your operation. We trust the above clarification provides you with sufficient information to determine which certifications are required for your operation. [ 44 ] By email of September 11, 2025, [NAME], of [NAME], again wrote to [NAME] at [NAME]. [NAME] states that he was circling back to [NAME]’s February 3 Email and advised that [NAME] now had a new but similar scenario. Specifically, [NAME] quotes the Applicant’s description of his vessel. [NAME] states that, based on this information, [NAME] determined that the intent of the vessel would meet the definition of a tug as outlined in [NAME]’s February 3 Email (which he reproduced) and had advised the Applicant that he would need his Master, Limited <60GT certificate. As the Applicant had only a SVOP, Northridge had declined to offer coverage. [ 45 ] [NAME] states that while not asking [NAME] to weigh in on his opinion of the Applicant’s operations, it appeared that the Applicant had taken it upon himself to contest the declining of his insurance coverage. [NAME] then reproduced the September 10 Email from [NAME], at [NAME], to the Applicant. [NAME] states that, if he is reading her email correctly, she was providing conflicting information to that of [NAME] by stating that a vessel needs to be used exclusively as a tug to be considered a tug. That differed from the Small Vessel Regulations that [NAME] had quoted which say that a “ tug means a vessel that is constructed or converted primarily for the purpose of towing.” [NAME] states that “[e]xclusively versus primarily or routine/significantly are different thresholds. From [NAME] email above, I think we could all agree the vessel is primarily or routinely used as a tug, but exclusively is a much tougher test to match.” [NAME] then poses two questions to [NAME] specific to the Applicant’s operations. [ 46 ] On September 16, 2025, [NAME] responded to [NAME]: Thank you for contacting [NAME]. Your request below was redirected to us at the Ontario Region as it pertains to an Ontario Region vessel. The purpose of this email is to clarify conflicting information you have received. In your email below, you correctly identify that there are two different definitions for tug: One contained in the [NAME] (the "exclusive" definition) and one contained in the Small Vessel Regulations (the "primarily" definition). For the purposes of determining certification requirements, which are governed by the [NAME] , it is the definition of tug contained in those regulations - the "exclusive" definition - that applies. For greater clarity: the February 3, 2025 email you received from [NAME] provides the incorrect definition of "tug" for the purposes of determining certification requirements. Your questions are addressed below. Question 1: I am not sure if [NAME]’s assertion takes into consideration that once [NAME] ties up to another vessel that he is now in control of his own and another vessel that would exceed 5GT ([NAME] is registered at 4.99) As per the Small Commercial Vessel Safety Guide (2010) table, over 5GT you require a Limited Master The two vessels would be viewed separately. When a towing vessel attaches to another vessel, it does not assume the gross tonnage of the other vessel for the purpose of calculating the gross tonnage of the towing vessel. Question 2: If we view the vessels separately from a tonnage standpoint, and we agree to view a vessel as a Tug, from a regulatory point of view, as the primary purpose of the vessel is to Tow which we do in both [NAME] and the January 30th email scenario below, how do we reconcile that with the [NAME] , SOR/2007-115? Especially when the Small Commercial Vessel Safety Guide (2010) table says the [NAME] prevail that define a vessel as having to exclusively tow? The [NAME] govern and it is the "exclusive" definition of tug contained in those regulations that applies for the purpose of determining certification requirements. The preamble to Table 4-1 in the Small Commercial Vessel Safety Guide notes that it reflects the minimum requirements set out in the [NAME]: Table 4-1, below, shows, by vessel type, size in gross tonnage (GT) and length in metres (m), and voyage class, the minimum requirements for competency for the vessel operator (shown in blue) as well as the marine emergency duties training requirements (shown in red) for each person required to be on board in order to meet the requirements for the minimum complement set out in the [NAME] . We trust the above clarifies the conflicting information you received. In sum, it is the [NAME] definition of tug that applies for the purpose of determining certification requirements - not the Small Vessel Regulations definition. [emphasis original] [ 47 ] By email of October 23, 2025, the broker advised the Applicant that [NAME] had advised that they were erring on the side of caution and would not be changing their position, even with the updated information provided by [NAME]. Issues [ 48 ] The Applicant identifies the issues as follows: What is the proper interpretation of the phrase “used exclusively in operations associated with towing” in the [NAME] ? Do the Applicant’s vessels fall within the definition of tug vessels for certification purposes? Is declaratory relief appropriate? [ 49 ] The Respondent identifies the issues in this application as: Is the February 3 Email from [NAME] to [NAME] a reviewable decision? Is the application moot? Is declaratory relief appropriate? Should the style of cause be amended to correct the name of the respondent? [ 50 ] In my view, the issues can be framed as follows: What is the decision under review? Is the application moot? Is declaratory relief appropriate? Applicant’s Position [ 51 ] The Applicant does not identify a decision to be judicially reviewed. Rather, in his Notice of Application he identifies the application as being for judicial review with respect to [NAME]’s “position” regarding certification requirements for the operators of his small commercial vessels. In that regard, the remedies he seeks include a declaration clarifying whether under the [NAME] operators of his vessels are legally required to hold a Master, Limited <60GT certificate or if a SVOP certificate remains legally sufficient. [ 52 ] In his written submissions, the Applicant asks this Court to interpret the phrase “used exclusively in operations associated with towing” as found in the [NAME] to determine if his vessel falls with the definition of “tug” for certification purposes. He submits that declaratory relief may be granted where a real dispute exists and the declaration [NAME] resolve uncertainty affecting the parties (citing [NAME] v Canada , 2018 SCC 30; Canada (Prime Minister) v [NAME] , 2010 SCC 3). And, even where aspects of the underlying facts have evolved, a declaration remains appropriate where the legal issue continues to have practical consequences ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC)). [ 53 ] The Applicant acknowledges that [NAME] has confirmed that its initial interpretation contained in the February 3 Email sent to [NAME] relied on the wrong regulatory definition. Further, that [NAME] subsequently confirmed that the applicable definition of a tug is the one within the [NAME] : a vessel used exclusively in operations associated with towing. He asserts however, that in that same correspondence [NAME] invited further details of the Applicant’s operation in order to assess the appropriate certification requirements. According to the Applicant, this reflects that the determination is dependent on the nature of the vessel’s actual operations and reinforces that the “regulatory test” is not triggered by the mere presence of towing activity. [ 54 ] The Applicant submits that the matter is not moot. This is because [NAME] does not provide determinations regarding certification requirements applicable to specific operations. As a result, legal uncertainty remains and the Applicant continues to face practical consequences arising from that uncertainty – including impacts on his operations and the ability to deploy qualified masters. Respondent’s Position [ 55 ] The Respondent is of the view that the Applicant is seeking judicial review of the February 3 Email sent by [NAME] to [NAME]. The Respondent acknowledges that the email contained incorrect regulatory information. However, it submits that the February 3 Email is not a reviewable decision because it was a “courtesy” response. And, in any event, the matter is moot because [NAME] has since corrected the incorrect regulatory information that it provided to the Applicant’s insurer. The Respondent also submits that [NAME] has no statutory obligation to respond to the questions it receives and, in responding to the Applicant’s insurer, [NAME] was not exercising jurisdiction under any of the statutes and regulations that bind it. [ 56 ] Further, nor should this Court grant the declaratory relief that the Applicant seeks. This is because it would have no practical effect and because it asks this Court to make a determination that [NAME] itself has refused to make because it has no authority to do so. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has no statutory right to obtain written confirmation from [NAME] that his operation is compliant with the regulations. Analysis i. What is the decision under review? [ 57 ] The Respondent argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the February 3 Email as it is not a decision or order of a federal board, commission or tribunal. [ 58 ] More specifically, the Respondent refers to paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, pursuant to which this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application seeking the relief described in that section (injunctive, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or declaratory) against a federal board, commission or tribunal. A “federal board, commission or tribunal” is defined in section 2 of the Federal Courts Act as “any body, person or persons having, exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under an Act of [NAME]….”. The Respondent is of the view that because the CSA 2001 which is the governing statute of the regulator, does not impose a duty on [NAME] “to respond to questions from the public,” an email from [NAME] providing regulatory information is not administrative action amenable to judicial review. This is because [NAME] does not have, nor is it exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction as a federal board, commission or tribunal. [ 59 ] In my view, there is a lack of clarity as to what decision, if any, the Applicant seeks to have reviewed. [ 60 ] However, it appears that the decision with which the Applicant takes issue is not the incorrect information provided by [NAME] in the February 3 Email – which he acknowledges [NAME] subsequently corrected. Rather, [NAME]’s refusal to make a determination about what certification his specific vessels and operation require. [ 61 ] That decision is set out in [NAME]’s September 10 Email. This is also reflected in the relief that the Applicant seeks in the Notice of Application: A declaration clarifying whether, under the [NAME], SOR/ 2007-115, operators of the Applicant's commercially registered vessels (under 5 gross tonnage, used for marine assistance, salvage, and environmental response, with incidental towing) are legally required to hold a Master, Limited certificate (<60 GT), or whether the Small Vessel Operator Proficiency (SVOP) certificate remains legally sufficient. [emphasis added] [ 62 ] In his written submissions, the Applicant asks this Court to make a determination of whether his particular vessels and operations fall within the definition of “tug” under subsection 1(1) of the [NAME] . [ 63 ] In its written submissions, the Respondent acknowledges that, despite subsequently receiving the correct regulatory information, the Applicant made further requests for written confirmation from [NAME] that his operation and personnel certifications were compliant with the [NAME]. And that “[NAME] refused to provide this confirmation as it is not authorized to make regulatory determinations regarding the personnel certification requirements for specific operations under the Canada Shipping Act , 2001, or its regulations.” [ 64 ] In that regard, the [NAME] deposes that, in addition to the certification personnel are required to hold, certain vessels must also hold certain certificates. Small commercial vessels between 15 and 150 GT, and all small commercial vessels carrying more than 12 passengers (including those less than 15 GT), are required to carry an Inspection Certificate from [NAME], which can only be obtained following an inspection by [NAME]. Pursuant to section 211 of the [NAME] , vessels required to hold an Inspection Certificate are also required to apply for a Safe Manning Document. A Safe Manning Document specifies the minimum personnel certification requirements needed to safely operate a vessel and are issued following a detailed application process. The [NAME] states that the Applicant’s vessels are registered as workboats at less than 5 GT and, therefore, do not require an Inspection Certificate or Safe Manning Document. [NAME] does specify the personnel certification requirements applicable to the operation of specific vessels when it issues Safe Manning Documents to those vessels, this occurs after a detailed application process and applies to vessels that are required to be inspected by [NAME]. This is not applicable with respect to the Applicant’s vessels. [ 65 ] The [NAME] further states that smaller vessels, like the Applicant’s vessels, that are not required to obtain a Safe Manning Document, are still required to comply with the personnel certification requirements in the [NAME] . To assist operators of small vessels in meeting regulatory requirements, [NAME] operates the voluntary Small Vessel Compliance Program [SVCP]. The SVCP involves an application process that results in [NAME] issuing to the operator a decal specifying the type of vessel and that the owner of the vessel is a participant in the SVCP. The [NAME] attaches as an exhibit a document illustrating the decals that can be issued once an applicant has submitted the required documents and passed [NAME]’s technical review. The blue decal is for small passenger vessels and workboats. [ 66 ] I have reservations about the Respondent’s argument that when it wrote to [NAME] on February 3, 2025, it was not acting as a “federal board, commission or other tribunal,” as that expression is defined in section 2 of the Federal Courts Act because it was providing [NAME] regulatory information. [NAME] gave specific certification advice pertaining to a specific vessel, albeit not to that vessel’s owner. I also fail to see how this situation is similar to [NAME] v Canada (Border Services Agency) , 2010 FCA 52, as the Respondent submits. [ 67 ] That said, it is correct that not every administrative action gives rise to a right to judicial review. There is no right of review where the conduct in issue does not affect [NAME], impose legal obligations, or cause prejudicial effects ( [NAME] v Canada (Transportation Agency) , 2020 FCA 92 at para 22 and the cases cited within). Additionally, it is not the Court’s role to read in elements of the application that are not in the notice of application ( China Mobile Communications Group Co, Ltd v Canada ([NAME]) , 2023 FCA 202 at para 43). [ 68 ] However, I need not resolve the issue of whether the decision under review is the February 3 Email or the September 10 Email and whether either are amenable to judicial review. That is because in either case this matter is moot and because the declaratory relief sought by the Applicant is not appropriate in these circumstances. ii. Mootness [ 69 ] As summarised by Justice Turley in [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2026 FC 216 [ [NAME] ], the test for mootness is as follows: [ 2 ] Mootness is assessed based on the two-step analysis set out in [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [ [NAME] ]. The first step requires an assessment of whether there remains a “live controversy” between the parties “that affects or may affect the [NAME] of the parties”: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2018 FCA 195 at para 10 [ [NAME] ]. [ 3 ] If there is no longer a live controversy, the second step of the analysis requires the Court to decide whether it should nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the matter: [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2022 FCA 33 at para 11 [ [NAME] ]. In deciding whether to hear a moot case, three factors guide the Court’s exercise of discretion: (i) the absence or presence of an adversarial context; (ii) the concern for judicial economy; and (iii) the Court’s proper law-making role: [NAME] at 358–363; [NAME] at para 20; [NAME] at para 13. [ 70 ] I agree with the Respondent that, to the extent that the dispute between the Applicant and [NAME] is the question of which regulations apply (and the decision under review is the February 3 Email), that issue has been resolved and is moot. [NAME] has stated unequivocally that it is the [NAME] definition of a tug that applies for the purpose of determining certification requirements – not the Small Vessel Regulations definition. There is no remaining uncertainty as between the parties about this. I also agree that as between the parties, this is not a live controversy. [NAME] has advised [NAME] of the correct regulatory requirements. The fact that [NAME] still refuses to reinstate the Applicant’s insurance coverage is not a live controversy between the parties to this application. [ 71 ] However, the Applicant submits that because [NAME] does not provide determinations regarding the certification requirements applicable to his particular operations, legal uncertainty remains. He faces practical consequences from this and, therefore, it remains a live issue. [ 72 ] I do not agree with the Respondent that the Applicant did not raise this issue in his Notice of Application. As indicated above, the declaratory relief that he seeks clearly speaks to the certification required for his particular vessels and operations. [ 73 ] However, [NAME] has advised the Applicant of the correct definition of a “tug” as found in the [NAME] pursuant to which he can assess the operations of his vessels to determine whether or not compliance with the [NAME] has been achieved. Further, [NAME] has advised the Applicant that the CSA 2001 regulatory regime does not compel [NAME] to conduct assessments and make determinations of the certification required for, and compliance with, operators of the subject small vessels or to respond to requests for such determinations. The Applicant has not challenged the regulatory basis of this refusal as set out in the September 10 Email. As a result, if the decision under review is the September 10 Email, there is again no live controversy between the parties. [ 74 ] Nor is this a circumstance where, in the absence of a live controversy, this Court should nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the matter. The third factor of the second stage of the mootness test is concerned with the Court playing its proper role ( [NAME] at para 9). In this case, the [NAME] indicates that the relief that the Applicant seeks is not available to him under the CSA 2001 and its regulations. That is, [NAME] does not have a regulatory mandate to assess small vessels such as those owned and operated by the Applicant to determine their specific marine personnel certification requirements. Based on that evidence, which has not been challenged by way of cross-examination, I agree with the Respondent that if the Court granted the relief sought, it would be going beyond the scope of the statutory and regulatory scheme enacted by [NAME], thereby veering into the role of the legislator. iii. Declaratory Relief [ 75 ] Having found the matter to be moot, I need not address the declaratory relief sought. However, and in any event, I am not persuaded that the declaratory relief sought by the Applicant should be granted. As stated in [COMPANY] v Canada , 2024 SCC 24 “[i]t is settled law that ‘[a] declaration can only be granted if it [NAME] have practical utility, that is, if it [NAME] settle a ‘live controversy’ between the parties’ ( [NAME] v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development ), 2016 SCC 12, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 99, at para. 11” (para 58). [ 76 ] For the reasons above, I have found that no live controversy remains between the parties. I also agree with the Respondent that the Applicant is asking this Court to make a factually suffused regulatory determination specific to his operations. In my view, it is not the role of the Court to assess the vessels and operations of the Applicant and determine their compliance with the marine personnel certification requirements of the [NAME] . [ 77 ] The Respondent also submits that if the Court granted the declaration sought, it would result in a specific determination regarding the Applicant’s vessels “without the safeguard of [NAME] having inspected those vessels, directly circumventing the process and protections provided by the current legislative scheme.” However, this appears to contradict the [NAME] which states that there is no required inspection for small vessels such as the Applicant’s (workboats of less than 5 GT) and that “[a]ccordingly, the applicant’s vessels have not been inspected by [NAME].” It also seems incongruous with the July 17, 2025, email from [NAME] which invites the Applicant to provide further details on his fleet as this would help [NAME] “confirm the appropriate certification requirements for your operations.” The Applicant provided those details on June 18, 2025, although, the response from [NAME] on July 7, 2025, offered only “regulatory guidance.” [ 78 ] I also find [NAME]’s September 10 Email to the Applicant to be somewhat disingenuous on this point. There, [NAME] states that [NAME] does not, and cannot, provide a determination in response to requests regarding what certifications a specific vessel or operation requires “because it is not equipped to obtain or confirm the required information to do so, which would require a fulsome assessment including prolonged in-person inspections.” What is at issue here are small vessels – the Applicant describes his vessel C35781ON a fiberglass workboat, of 4.99 GT and 7.01 meters in length. Surely this would not engage a prolonged in person inspection and a demanding level of specialized expertise by the attending [NAME] inspector or their delegate. As to a fulsome assessment, [NAME] does not seem to deem this necessary as it instead relies on the voluntary SVCP and a technical review. [ 79 ] In that regard, and in any event, as outlined in the [NAME], there is a process open to the Applicant to assist him in ensuring compliance with the [NAME] . This is the voluntary SVCP. The evidence also indicates that he could seek to avail himself of the [NAME] as, in some circumstances where regulatory compliance presents operational hardship, it may be an appropriate avenue for relief. [ 80 ] In my view, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate to grant the requested declaratory relief. Conclusion [ 81 ] The record clearly demonstrates that [NAME] made errors. It dealt directly with [NAME], an insurer, and gave incorrect advice. This caused [NAME] to refuse to renew its coverage of the Applicant’s vessel (and likely others). [NAME] gave further incorrect information to the Applicant by way of the [NAME] email of July 7, 2025 (as acknowledged in its September 10 Email). [NAME] also denied that it corresponded with an insurer, apparently because the Ontario Region was unaware that the Western Region had done just that. In short, [NAME]’s response to this issue was problematic. However, for the reasons above, I am not persuaded that there remains a live issue between the parties to this application or that the declaratory relief that the Applicant seeks is appropriate in these circumstances. Costs [ 82 ] The Respondent seeks $500 in costs. Although the Respondent was the successful party, under the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion pursuant to Rule 400(1) and declining to award costs.

JUDGMENT IN T-2995-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The style of cause is hereby amended, adding the [NAME] of Canada as a named respondent; This application for judicial review is dismissed; and There shall be no order as to costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2995-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF [NAME] AND [NAME] OF CANADA application dealt with in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR /98-106

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: july 14, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant (ON THEIR OWN BEHALF) [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent