·  Context:

• The case is part of a receivership process under Section 129 of the Securities Act (Ontario).
• The Thomas Canning Claimants ("Canning") have filed a claim against Bridging Finance Inc. and others for an alleged $51 million fraud that predates the receivership.

·  Claims and Issues:

• Canning Claim: Alleges fraud and conspiracy involving Bridging Finance, Skymark Finance Corporation, and 2581150 Ontario Inc., related to a court-supervised process (RISP) for refinancing, investment, and/or sale of assets from a previous receivership proceeding (2015-2017).
• The Receiver (PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.) disallowed the Canning Claim.
• Canning contested the disallowance before a court-appointed Claims Officer, leading to procedural disputes over document disclosure and witness testimony.

·  Procedural Decisions and Appeals:

• Two procedural decisions by the Claims Officer (Douglas Cunningham KC) denied Canning’s requests for extensive pre-hearing discovery and third-party witness examination.
• Canning appealed these procedural decisions, arguing they were unfair and hindered their ability to prepare their case.
• The appeal was heard by Justice Kimmel, who dismissed the appeal, upholding the Claims Officer's decisions on grounds that the process needed to be efficient, timely, and fair within the unique context of a receivership.

·  Key Legal Findings:

• The appeal process does not require leave for interim or interlocutory procedural decisions in a receivership claims process.
• The Claims Officer's discretion in procedural matters, including disclosure and witness examination, is afforded deference similar to case management decisions in civil litigation.

·  Outcome:

• The appeal was dismissed. The procedural framework established by the Claims Officer for the adjudication of the Canning Claim was upheld.