Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue over whether the plaintiff, who had initiated and heavily prolonged the litigation, should be reimbursed the $402 judicial stamp after the matter settled out of court.
• The court scrutinised the plaintiff’s repeated, inadequately supported requests for suspension and extensions based on health grounds, noting the absence of contemporaneous, probative medical evidence despite clear case-management orders.
• Concerns arose regarding potential abuse of process and disproportionate use of judicial resources, given the modest monetary value of the claim compared to the plaintiff’s insistence on lengthy proceedings and numerous witnesses.
• The plaintiff’s credibility was undermined by conflicting allegations in a parallel lawsuit about the same vehicle and by his demonstrated ability to litigate actively despite claimed incapacity.
• Procedural non-compliance became a core evidentiary theme, as the plaintiff persistently ignored binding management decisions requiring precise medical proof and proportionate trial planning.
• Ultimately, the court treated reimbursement of the judicial stamp as incompatible with the proper administration of justice in light of the plaintiff’s conduct and persistent disregard of procedural obligations.

Facts and procedural history

The dispute arose from a claim brought by Nick Vernacchia, a lawyer acting on his own behalf, against 4183088 Canada Inc., operating as Spinelli Toyota Pointe-Claire, with Toyota Canada Inc. named as mise en cause. He alleged that damage had been caused to his Toyota Camry following the installation of a block heater by Spinelli on 3 December 2019. He claimed a total of $19,462.79, broken down into reimbursement of the block-heater installation, bodywork repair costs, non-liquidated damages for mechanical, electrical, technological and aesthetic problems, trouble and inconvenience, and punitive damages. From the outset, the case was framed as a civil liability dispute involving alleged negligent work on a vehicle and consequential financial and non-pecuniary loss.

When he filed his originating application on 31 May 2023, Vernacchia immediately sought a suspension of the proceeding and an extension of the deadline to file an inscription for instruction and judgment, initially citing COVID-19 as the reason. That justification was already tenuous, as the pandemic emergency had been over for about a year. Later, in the case protocol he signed in September 2023, he again requested suspension, this time pointing to serious health problems but without specifying or evidencing them. The case was effectively put on hold on the basis of his unilateral proposal under article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Spinelli, through its own proposed protocol and subsequent management submissions, quickly raised red flags. It alleged that Vernacchia was refusing to collaborate, leaving voice messages instructing counsel not to contact him or notify him of procedures because of health issues, yet paradoxically continuing to send his own documents and correspondence. Spinelli also noted that Vernacchia had not provided any evidence of fault or of damage to support his substantial monetary claim. Despite these concerns, the court granted several suspensions over 2023 and 2024, repeatedly extending the time to file the inscription.

In April 2024, Vernacchia sought yet another suspension, asking for a delay “as far as possible” and alleging a violent fall, ongoing cancer surgeries, and multiple specialist appointments. The court granted a further suspension and extended deadlines, but expressly noted the absence of medical certificates and the lack of any expert report to support the alleged mechanical fault and damage to the vehicle. The court underlined that an expert opinion on the vehicle’s problems and causation “could be useful” if he wished to succeed and warned him that any further delays based on health would have to be backed by “probante” medical proof.

Management orders, non-compliance and concerns of abuse

Despite clear directions, Vernacchia failed to supply the detailed, contemporaneous medical evidence ordered. In April 2025, the court again addressed his requests for suspension and extension, granting limited relief but making it explicit that he had to produce relevant medical documentation by a firm date and be ready to proceed at a scheduled hearing. The judge emphasised that no further remands would be granted if documents were missing.

Rather than complying, Vernacchia wrote to the court to challenge the appropriateness of requiring authorities and documentation in advance, arguing he had already told the judge that he would be unable to act on the file between April and May 2025. He did not appeal the management order, even though he had previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to challenge similar case-management decisions before the Court of Appeal in other litigation. In a detailed letter on 9 May 2025, he listed a series of serious medical conditions and asserted that many of his documents, including medical ones, had been misplaced, lost or stolen. At the same time, he expressly refused to authorise anyone to access, obtain or disclose his medical files, making compliance with the court’s management orders practically impossible. He gave no clear information about when or how the alleged loss or theft of documents had occurred and did not attempt to obtain replacement documentation from medical providers.

Subsequently, he filed yet another motion for suspension and extension, now attaching a 2019 medical note declaring him permanently unable to work or attend court. This note, however, was not contemporaneous with the 2023–2025 period relevant to his repeated requests and did not address the specific surgeries, appointments or treatments that he claimed justified ongoing delays. The court noted that, despite asserting his inability to handle legal matters, he was demonstrably active in drafting lengthy procedures, appearing in court at times and even engaging the Court of Appeal to challenge management decisions.

As part of its opposition, Spinelli produced a docket search showing that “Nick Vernacchia” had been involved as plaintiff in 22 other cases, many of which displayed similar patterns: numerous requests for extensions and remands, failure to respect court-imposed schedules and incomplete or missing medical justifications. The court, in a June 2025 judgment on one of his suspension requests, analysed six of those files and found recurring conduct: an abnormally high number of applications for extensions, consistent failures to comply with schedules, and repeated reliance on health issues without timely or sufficient medical proof. The judge gave Vernacchia a “last chance” to put his case in order, ordering him to produce credible medical evidence within 75 days explaining why he had been unable to meet deadlines in this and prior orders, and to outline upcoming exams and interventions with specific dates. The judge stressed that broad, generalised references to illness were no longer acceptable, particularly given the modest value of the dispute and the disproportionate use of judicial resources. The order expressly warned that failure to comply could lead to a request to dismiss his claim.

Even after receiving a courtesy copy of that judgment in June 2025, Vernacchia continued to seek further suspension in September 2025 without providing the detailed, time-specific medical documentation required. The medical notes he eventually produced repeated, in general terms, permanent disability and listed various pathologies but still did not identify dates of diagnoses, surgeries, treatment durations or concrete scheduling constraints during the relevant period. They also did not corroborate the many operations and appointments he had previously invoked.

Proportionality, trial planning and conflicting claims

Against that background, the case moved into the stage of inscription for instruction and judgment. On 31 October 2025, Vernacchia filed a unilateral demand for inscription that announced 14 witnesses and seven days of hearing: five days for lay witnesses, one day for experts and one day for his final argument. At that time, he still had not filed any expert report establishing that the block heater had been improperly installed or that such installation had caused the alleged damage to his car.

Spinelli and Toyota submitted their own case-management notice, emphasising that they had prepared a proportional joint inscription that reflected the modest size of the claim, while Vernacchia’s unilateral inscription was, in their view, plainly abusive and disproportionate. They recalled the pattern of dilatory conduct already described by the earlier management judge and asked the court to reject his inscription, endorse the joint one and sanction him for serious breaches of the orderly conduct of the proceeding under article 342 C.C.P.

A subsequent management conference held on 7 November 2025 illustrated the level of concern. The court noted that the seven-day estimate for the plaintiff’s case alone, and the 14 proposed witnesses, were “completely disproportionate” for a claim of $19,462.79. Defence and mise en cause together estimated approximately 4.5 hours for their entire case and submissions. The judge ordered the parties to file a single joint inscription by 12 December 2025 and directed Vernacchia to identify only those witnesses essential to his case, with secondary facts to be proven by written declarations under article 292 C.C.P. Despite being reminded again by defence counsel, he did not complete the joint inscription as ordered.

The court also became aware of a parallel lawsuit that Vernacchia had filed against another Toyota dealer, 9288-3461 Québec Inc. (St-Léonard Toyota), again with Toyota Canada Inc. as mise en cause. In that case he claimed approximately $29,479.06 relating to the same Toyota Camry (VIN 4T1BF1FKXGU198896), alleging the vehicle had been defective and plagued with mechanical, electrical, technological and aesthetic problems from the outset. Those allegations—that the vehicle was in poor condition at delivery and had latent defects progressively worsening—appeared difficult to reconcile with his theory in the Spinelli case that damage resulted from improper installation of a block heater on the same vehicle. The court noted that, in the St-Léonard case as well, he had promptly sought suspension of proceedings on health grounds and again had not announced any expert evidence in support of his allegations. Another management decision in that file had also required him to support any further suspension requests with medical proof, suggesting a similar pattern of conduct.

Settlement and the late verbal request for reimbursement

After extended management activity, on 22 December 2025 the parties informed the presiding judge that the case had settled. A judge’s minute recorded the cancellation of the case-management conference scheduled for 23 December 2025 and noted that the parties would file a declaration of settlement out of court by 9 January 2026. In line with usual practice, the settlement was not submitted to the court in detail, but the judge observed that, as a rule, such settlements encompass capital, interest and costs between the parties.

Despite the cancellation of the management conference and the pending filing of the settlement declaration, Vernacchia appeared at the courthouse on the afternoon of 23 December 2025 without prior notice. He first approached the presiding judge’s office asking to be heard in chambers, which led the judge to open a formal courtroom sitting in order to ensure proper recording and the participation of all parties. Defence counsel joined by videoconference and telephone from holiday travel.

Vernacchia explained that he had gone to the court registry to request reimbursement of the $402 judicial stamp (timbre judiciaire) he had paid on 31 October 2025 when he filed his unilateral inscription for instruction and judgment. The registrar had informed him that such a reimbursement would require judicial authorisation, prompting him to seek an immediate audience. He submitted that settlement discussions had begun around 7 November 2025 and that, given his long-standing health problems and modest income, he needed the reimbursement of the stamp.

In response, Spinelli’s counsel noted that the parties had been unable to file a joint inscription because, instead of collaborating on the common form previously sent to him, Vernacchia had chosen to file his own unilateral inscription with 14 witnesses and seven days of hearing. Both defence and mise en cause counsel otherwise left the decision on the reimbursement request to the court’s discretion.

Assessment of conduct, proportionality and the interests of justice

In ruling on the verbal motion for reimbursement of the judicial stamp, the court placed it squarely in the context of the entire procedural history. It emphasised that Vernacchia had consciously chosen to sue in the Civil Division of the Court of Québec rather than the Small Claims Division, despite being a lawyer fully aware that small claims procedure is significantly simplified and more accessible—particularly important if health problems genuinely made it difficult to follow ordinary civil procedure. The court remarked that, as an experienced litigant, he could not reasonably have expected to recover in full the large amounts he sought for moral and punitive damages, which suggested that he could have adapted his claim to fall within small claims jurisdiction without sacrificing the essence of his complaint.

The judge reiterated that, over a period of more than two years, Vernacchia had persistently refused to comply with binding management orders requiring the production of detailed, contemporaneous medical evidence. Two different judges had already warned him that such evidence was a precondition for further suspensions or extensions, and a third judge had ultimately given him a “last chance” on the same terms. Yet he continued to provide only vague assertions, general medical notes and outdated attestations, all the while insisting on lengthy delays and an expansive, multi-day trial for a relatively modest claim.

The court also took into account the apparent inconsistency between his description of vehicle problems in the Spinelli case and his allegations in the St-Léonard Toyota case about the same car. This inconsistency contributed to the impression that the underlying merits of his claim against Spinelli were weak in the absence of any expert evidence and raised questions about the appropriateness of continuing to mobilise judicial resources at the level he sought. Further, in both the present case and the parallel litigation, he followed the same pattern: initiate proceedings with high-value claims, immediately request suspension citing serious health issues, refuse or fail to provide adequate medical documentation and seek extensive procedural delays.

On the day of the hearing, the judge’s own observations aligned with those of the earlier management judge: Vernacchia appeared “particularly dynamic” and had no evident difficulty articulating and defending his positions. The court therefore did not accept his claim that health problems rendered it impossible for him either to comply with procedural orders or to participate in a shorter, proportionate hearing. Taken together, his repeated failures to obey clear court orders, the disproportionate inscription and his unwillingness to collaborate in preparing a joint, reasonable inscription weighed heavily against granting any discretionary relief.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In its 12 January 2026 judgment, the Court of Québec dismissed Nick Vernacchia’s verbal request to be reimbursed the $402 judicial stamp he had paid for his unilateral inscription for instruction and judgment. The court held that, given his procedural history, refusal to comply with management orders, insistence on an exaggerated trial plan and the questionable strength and coherence of his underlying claim, granting a reimbursement would undermine and “discredit” the administration of justice. The settlement between the parties was not before the court, and the judgment does not disclose any amounts paid as part of that compromise. Accordingly, in this specific decision, the successful parties are the defendant 4183088 Canada Inc. (Spinelli Toyota Pointe-Claire) and the mise en cause Toyota Canada Inc., and no monetary award, damages or quantified costs are ordered in their favour; the only concrete financial result identified is that Vernacchia is refused reimbursement of the $402 judicial stamp, and any further amounts potentially payable under the settlement or as costs cannot be determined from the judgment.