yes they did, im going to refer to the first link
section 14 talks about the arguement that they use being that its a replica, and also mentions it must not be a firearm in itself
in secton 16 it talks about it not being a firearm
"to be considered a firearm, an airsoft rifle must have a muzzle velocity that exceeds 124 metres (407 feet) per second. Because the rifles in issue have muzzle velocities that are below this threshold, the Tribunal agrees with the CBSA that they are not firearms. Based on the definition of “firearm” found in section 2, the Tribunal is satisfied that the second condition of the definition of “replica firearm” is fulfilled, i.e. each rifle in issue itself is not a firearm."