or privity". Great Lakes challenged the denial of its counterclaims through appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were three issues at bar: Is the captain of Great Lakes' tug Ohio a directing mind of Great Lakes by virtue of the fact that he exercised some discretion and performed some non‑navigational functions as an incident of his employment? Does s. 647(2) of the Canada Shipping Act apply to limit Great Lakes' liability with respect to errors committed in the navigation of other vessels within the flotilla not owned by Great Lakes? In the event that Great Lakes is entitled to limit its liability under the Canada Shipping Act, what vessels must be taken into account in determining the extent of its liability? Opinion The appeals were allowed, and Iacobucci J held in his ruling: There was no actual fault or privity on the part of Great Lakes on the basis that Captain Kelch was a directing mind of the corporation. The key factor which distinguishes directing minds from normal employees is the capacity to exercise decision-making authority on matters of corporate policy, rather than merely to give effect to such policy on an operational basis, whether at head office or across the sea. Although Captain Kelch was master of the Ohio, he did not have governing authority over the management and operation of Great Lakes' tugs. Yes. S. 647(2) provides that the owner of a ship may limit its liability for damage caused to another vessel through "any other act or omission of any person on board that ship". Limiting Great Lakes' liability accords not only with the clear words of the statute but also with the purpose underlying this section namely, removing the threat of unlimited liability to a shipowner. The intent of s. 647(2) is to limit liability for navigational errors according only to the tonnage of those vessels causing the alleged damage. Apart from the vessel responsible for the overall navigation of a flotilla, only those vessels of the same shipowner which physically caused or contributed to the resulting damage form the unit for which liability is limited. Here, the appropriate unit of limitation under s. 647(2) is the tonnage of the tug Ohio alone. As the South Carolina did not physically contribute to the collision in any manner, she cannot be held to be a "guilty" vessel or part of the "wrongdoing mass". McLachlin J