Under the TCC's General Procedure, parties are to disclose to one another the documents they intend to rely on.  This is "the default rule" in Rule 81.  But parties can agree, or either can apply to the Court for an order, that each disclose all documents it has, whether or not it plans to rely on them.  

In this motion decision, in a "Fiscal Arbitrators"-like penalty appeal (see Torres v. The Queen, (2013 TCC C. Miller), the Appellant's counsel sought all CRA documents relating to the scheme, including files of all other taxpayers audited.  Justice Valerie Miller refused the order relying on these principles: 

 "[15]        The party requesting full disclosure of documents under section 82 must demonstrate that the requested documents are relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings and that there are reasonable grounds for such an order: Mintzer v R, 2008 TCC 72 (CanLII), 2008 TCC 72.[16]        In making its decision for full disclosure, the Court must be satisfied that full disclosure will secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding: Section 4(1) of the Rules.

"[17]        In accordance with subsection 4(1) of the Rules, the Court should also consider whether the issues under appeal are such that the increased expense and time required to assemble the requested documents are warranted: Long v R, 2010 TCC 197 (CanLII), 2010 TCC 197 at paragraphs 17. The objectives of efficiency, effectiveness, practicality and the ‘need to get on with the litigation’ also play a part in the Court’s decision for full disclosure: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v R, 2013 TCC 170 (CanLII), 2013 TCC 170 at paragraph 106.

"[18]        When deciding whether it would exercise its discretion to grant an order for full disclosure of documents, this Court has also considered the importance of the principle of proportionality in tax litigation. 

See Bolduc v. The Queen, (2014 TCC V A Miller)