Does the proportionality principle need to be expanded or reduced?

In Yim, Trimble J. relied on the decision of Perell J. in Ontario v. Rothmans, 2011 ONSC 2504. In Rothmans, Perell J. found that an expansionary approach to proportionality is wrong. He concluded that “a parsimonious proportionality principle provides a useful tool for cases large and small”: at para. 163. Justice Perell specifically rejected the notion that “because a case is important or the claim large, there should be more procedure not less procedure,” finding that the proportionality principle would lose its utility for large cases such as class proceedings “where justice can be done by reducing not expanding the procedure”: at para. 164. I agree.