In a transfer pricing dispute, the taxpayer's law firm (Osler) and a third party spent approximately 14,000 hours collecting, reviewing and producing documents. Osler had reviewed all material in its possession but had not required the taxpayer to make a further review of material in its possession. The Minister moved for expanded document production.
Rip CJ referred with approval (at para. 38) to the principle:
...that the concept of proportionality requires "dealing with a case in ways which are proportionate to the amount of money involved, the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues."
He also quoted the Principle 2 of the Sedona Conference. He then concluded (at para. 44) that:
...given the complexity of this case and the amount at stake, it is not unreasonable for the appellant to review and conduct additional searches and make further inquiries into certain documents.
Rip CJ also ordered the taxpayer to explain the basis for having made purported solicitor-client privilege-based redactions, but found that redactions on privacy grounds (e.g. salary deletions) were appropriate, provided such redactions did not render the relevant parts incomprehensible (para. 56).