I think McG and MilEME09 have hit the two major issues bang on.
First and foremost, any attempt to provide for a meaningful role for the reserves at a collectively trained battalion or even company level requires a complete transformation to eliminate the underlying problems with the reserves caused by the existing "come when you feel like it" conditions of service, the lack of meaningful employment protection legislation and lower training standards. Without correcting all that and a few other things, all you'll ever be able to manage is individual or very small team augmentations.
Second, Canada can form only two types of quick reaction forces: one based on special forces and the other based on light battalions. This is because we have no capability to rapidly project a medium or heavy force. Both special and light forces are necessary for the type of operations mostly likely adopted by the government during peacetime. Canada uses the symmetrical brigade system within the Managed Readiness System to always have one light battalion at the ready state. IMHO I would prefer to see an asymmetrical force of a light, medium and heavy brigades where the light brigade would always have two battalions available for rapid deployment (one deployed, one on stand by for anywhere in the world including the arctic). The medium brigade would form the follow up force while the heavy brigade would form our centre of excellence for all things Europe.
I can't see tanks in a combat support brigade. Tanks are a maneuver unit and as such I would suggest grouping the tank regiment in the heavy brigade with two mechanized battalions (and as such having a total of three maneuver units)
By my count you have three reg maneuver brigades; three hybrid maneuver brigades;
one res maneuver brigade; two combat support brigades and one combat service support brigade plus some unaffiliated res units. That's a total of ten brigades. When I did the math of the existing personnel structure of the CA I came up with the conclusion that we could only man six maneuver and three support brigades (one artillery, one sustainment and one maneuver enhancement) and I cut one of the maneuver brigades and redistributed it's people/units to other brigades because I concluded we couldn't sustain the ninth brigade headquarters so I left it with five maneuver brigades, one combat support brigade and two service support brigades. Quite frankly if I could have managed another brigade headquarters I would probably have made it another sustainment brigade because a ratio of five maneuver brigades to four support brigades makes more sense than six and three. I know that flies in the face of common Canadian reserve force thinking but we're already stressing out trying to support and sustain battlegroups and if we want to ever hope to deploy a brigade (or heaven forbid, a division) then more service support units are critical. Also, for peacetime operations, having some depth in engineering, logistics, transport and similar capabilities would broaden the scope of the type of operations we could do.
Those are my thoughts for the time being.