The defendant, who faced tax evasion charges, was provided with a massive disclosure, mostly on a USB key, of his file. He complained of a lack of organization of the electronic disclosure and the absence of a software or search engine that would allow him to browse by keyword or field. He also complained of redacted disclosures and inaccessibility of information or documents. Asselin JCQ stated (at paras. 36-38, TaxInterpretations translation):
A large-scale disclosure requires an electronic disclosure that is indexed in an organized manner and has a search tool that allows (1) a single search covering all the elements contained in the disclosed database, (2) searches by keyword or search field, and (3) the preservation of links between files and parent documents.
In the current context … the absence of a software, search engine or substantial electronic disclosure management system does not meet the test of reasonable accessibility. …
[T]he defendant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that there are specific deficiencies or significant technical difficulties with the disclosure of the evidence in electronic form. Thus, the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence has been compromised, which runs contrary to the Supreme Court's concern that all criminal and regulatory cases must proceed expeditiously and diligently so that the image of justice is not tarnished.
He then issued this order:
the prosecutor is to deliver to the defendant within 75 days an electronic disclosure that is reasonably accessible, equipped with software, search engines or a management system that allows:
(a) A single search covering the entire data set;
(b) Keyword searches of the full text of the documents or fields, including by date, author, addressee, source and subject;
(c) Preserving relationships between documents included in the disclosure; and
(d) Providing intelligible and effective indexing of the information, documents and files disclosed.