Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central issue is whether the Coin Claim — a Small Claims Court action for $35,000.00 in damages — should be transferred to the Superior Court of Justice.
• Jointly owned collectible coins were allegedly sold without the co-owner's consent or share of proceeds, forming the basis of the breach of contract claim.
• Complexity in the proceedings arose almost entirely from a separate Oppression Claim brought by the defendant, which sought relief exceeding Small Claims Court jurisdiction.
• Strategic misrepresentation was a key concern: the defendant filed the Oppression Claim in Small Claims Court by understating its quantum at $50,000.00 when the actual relief sought was $150,000.00.
• Courts exercise discretion to transfer Small Claims actions sparingly, only when a claim cannot be justly and fairly resolved under Small Claims Court procedures.
• Preserving the plaintiff's choice of forum was a decisive factor, as transferring the Coin Claim would expose him to unnecessary cost, delay, and procedural complexity.

Facts of the case

Spyros Theoharis (plaintiff) and Zisi Konstantinou (defendant) are brothers-in-law and former business partners whose families are now estranged. The parties jointly owned a collection of collectible coins as an investment on a "50/50" basis — an arrangement the defendant himself acknowledged in writing. At some point, the defendant allegedly sold a coin from the collection without informing the plaintiff, obtaining his consent, or sharing the proceeds. The plaintiff subsequently sold the remaining coins in the collection for $135,000.00 in total, with the defendant's knowledge and consent. On October 1, 2025, the plaintiff commenced a claim in the Small Claims Court in Brampton seeking $35,000.00 in damages — representing his one-half share of the proceeds — for breach of contract arising from the joint coin ownership (the "Coin Claim").

On November 3, 2025, the defendant filed a defence in the Small Claims Court seeking, among other things, a set-off against any amounts owed to the plaintiff. On November 30, 2025, the defendant filed a separate claim in the Small Claims Court (the "Oppression Claim") seeking $150,000.00 in damages and various shareholder remedies — including declaratory and accounting relief — in respect of two companies, 2115737 Ontario Inc. and Zispan Inc., and a third party, Nolan Anelevitz, who was an officer, director, and shareholder of Zispan Inc. along with the plaintiff and defendant. The Oppression Claim alleged that the plaintiff conducted the affairs of 2115737 Ontario Inc. in a manner oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, by misappropriating rent income, falsely claiming expenses, and withholding revenues. It further alleged that the plaintiff misappropriated funds from Zispan Inc., rendered it unable to repay the defendant's shareholder loan, and diverted the company's assets and income to Branded Productions (Canada), a company owned by the plaintiff. On January 8, 2026, the defendant brought a motion to transfer both the Coin Claim and the Oppression Claim to the Superior Court of Justice.

Contractual and jurisdictional framework

No formal written contract governing the coin collection was placed before the court. The parties' equal ownership rested on the defendant's own written acknowledgment of a "50/50" arrangement. The applicable legal principles were those of contract law and unjust enrichment in relation to the Coin Claim, and shareholder oppression and fiduciary law under the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c. B.16 in respect of the Oppression Claim. The defendant conceded — in writing through counsel on October 24, 2025 — that the relief sought in the Oppression Claim exceeded the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction. Despite this, he filed the Oppression Claim in that court by misrepresenting its quantum in Form 10A as $50,000.00, when the actual relief pleaded sought $150,000.00 in damages. The defendant's own reply affidavit confirmed this was done intentionally, after the Small Claims Court had previously rejected the Oppression Claim for filing when its true quantum was disclosed.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice M.T. Doi applied the established legal principle that the discretion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court is exercised sparingly, and only when the moving party satisfies the onus of establishing that the claim cannot be justly and fairly resolved under Small Claims Court procedures. The court considered the four relevant factors: complexity of the litigation, the role of pre-trial discovery and expert evidence, whether the case raises issues of general importance, and the desire for a just and fair determination.

On all four factors, the court found in favour of keeping the Coin Claim in the Small Claims Court. The claim was found to be factually and legally straightforward, involving a narrow set of purchase and sale records and party communications. Both parties agreed that no expert evidence — whether valuation, actuarial, or accounting — was required. The court was not persuaded that pre-trial discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure was necessary, as the defendant had not identified any records beyond those already in his possession. The issues raised were entirely private in nature, confined to the specific interests of the two parties, and raised no questions of broader legal significance.

The court was also critical of the defendant's litigation strategy. It found that the defendant had deliberately filed the Oppression Claim in the Small Claims Court — despite knowing it exceeded that court's jurisdiction — for the collateral purpose of engineering a transfer of the entire proceeding to the Superior Court and gaining a strategic advantage over the plaintiff's choice of forum. The court noted that a settlement conference in the Small Claims Court had already been adjourned on January 12, 2026, as a result of this motion, further delaying adjudication of the Coin Claim. Justice Doi emphasized that discretion to transfer should not be exercised to permit a party to obtain a strategic advantage, and that the filing of the Oppression Claim by misrepresenting its quantum was inappropriate and should not be encouraged. While the defendant's interest in setting off any amounts owed against a potential award in the Oppression Claim was acknowledged as a factor favouring transfer, the court found it was outweighed by the need to preserve the plaintiff's choice of forum and ensure a just, expeditious, and affordable resolution of the Coin Claim.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to transfer the Coin Claim to the Superior Court of Justice and granted the unopposed motion to transfer the Oppression Claim to the Superior Court. The plaintiff, Spyros Theoharis, was the successful party on the contested portion of the motion. No monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered at this stage; the court directed the parties to file written costs submissions — of up to three pages each, not including costs outlines and any offers to settle — within the prescribed timeframes if they could not agree on costs. No specific costs amount was determined in the endorsement.