Yes. Grant applications are evaluated very differently depending on the discipline. That's why I insisted that changing the criteria at the funding agency level, whether at SSHRC or NSERC, wouldn't have much impact. The committees have sovereignty over how they apply the evaluation criteria.
I'll give you a concrete example: In economics, what matters for getting a grant is that you've published articles in certain journals that are considered prestigious. If you haven't done so, your chances of getting a grant are extremely slim. However, that isn't the case when it comes to history. There isn't one specific history journal that you have to have published in or else you have lower chances of getting a grant. The definition of what constitutes quality work varies depending on the discipline.
I would add that obviously not everyone has the same opportunities to publish in certain prestigious journals, because that's very much linked to people's contact networks, in particular.
That's why I propose keeping the authors of evaluated projects anonymous at first, so the content of their project is being evaluated, and not their CV or their past grants.