DiLalla v. The Queen (January 30, 2018 – 2018 FCA 28, Pelletier, Near, Woods (author), JJ.A.).
Précis: At discovery Mr. DiLalla had asked for three kinds of documents from the Crown, all of which were refused:
(1) all policies and interpretations of the Canada Revenue Agency that mention or are in relation to personal endeavours and hobbies, (2) all such documents relating to gross negligence penalties, and (3) Canada Revenue Agency’s policies as to whether a net worth audit should be completed.
He appealed that refusal to the Tax Court which declined to order their production on the basis that the requests were overly broad and vague. He appealed the first two categories to the Federal Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, with costs, as not disclosing a reviewable error.
Decision: This decision turned on the inability of Mr. DiLalla to demonstrate and palpable and overriding error:
 In this Court, the errors alleged by Mr. DiLalla involve questions of mixed fact and law which should be reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error (Canada v. Superior Plus Corp., 2015 FCA 241 at paragraph 5). In this context, the term “palpable” means obvious and the term “overriding” means going to the heart of the matter at issue.
 We are of the view that the Tax Court made no such reviewable error in dismissing the motion with respect to the documents at issue. In particular, it was not a reviewable error for the Tax Court to conclude that the first two requests were overly broad and vague. Mr. DiLalla mentions a number of judicial authorities in his submissions, but these authorities are all distinguishable on their facts.
Thus the appeal was dismissed with costs.