One might think P.(D.) v. Wagg, 2002 CanLII 23611 placed limits on production of disclosure in discipline matters.
That would be wrong.
Philip Services Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2015 ONCA 60:
 Importantly, as counsel for the Institute acknowledges, since Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ontario) (1994), 1994 CanLII 3360 (ON CA), 19 O.R. (3d) 483 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C refused,  S.C.C.A. No. 348, was decided, the Institute's practice is to provide disclosure to the subject of the complaint when charges are laid, in fulfillment of its Stinchcombedisclosure obligations. Indeed, but for seemingly tactical decisions by Mr. Woodsford and Deloitte not to accept the disclosure available to them and to conclude an agreement with the Institute that ensured the investigators' report and other contentious materials would not be led in evidence at the discipline hearing, the material at issue would have been in the hands of Mr. Woodsford and Deloitte and compellable on discovery and would have been made public through the discipline process.