Access to justice is an ongoing concern in the legal community, as many people struggle to afford the legal services offered by lawyers. The problem of access to justice, coupled with the development of increasingly powerful Generative AI tools, has led many self-represented litigants to seek answers to their legal questions from those tools and their associated platforms. However, a Quebec Superior Court decision highlights why self-represented litigants should be wary of relying on generative AI platforms to form their legal arguments.
What Happened When a Self-Represented Litigant Used AI-Generated Citations in Court?
In Spectre Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521, the Quebec Superior Court reviewed an arbitration award against Mr. Jean Laparade but addressed another more salient issue: Mr. Laparade’s use of generative artificial intelligence to defend himself in court. In the end, Mr. Laprade was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for citing expert quotes and jurisprudence that do not exist.
Why Does This Decision Matter for Self-Represented Litigants?
The Quebec ruling is notable because it sanctioned a self-represented litigant with a significant monetary fine. Canadian courts give leeway to those without counsel, but that latitude does not excuse filing invented cases or quotations. The message is simple: if an AI tool is used to draft or research, the person filing the documents is responsible for verifying every citation against an authoritative source, such as CanLII, an official court website, or a recognized publisher. Failure to do so can be treated as a serious procedural breach, with fines or other measures aimed at protecting the integrity of the process.
How Have Canadian Courts Responded to AI-Generated Legal Citations?
The reliance on AI systems in legal proceedings is not a problem limited to self-represented litigants; lawyers in various Canadian jurisdictions have been caught using generative AI services in their submissions. Judges have reprimanded lawyers for using AI in BC, Alberta and in the Federal Court of Canada.
- In Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dealt with a lawyer who had included two non-existent cases, generated using ChatGPT, in a filed notice of application. The Court wrote that “citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court,” and required the lawyer personally to bear certain costs, although special costs were not ordered on the facts.
- In Reddy v. Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322, the Alberta Court of Appeal confronted a factum with citations that appeared to be AI-generated hallucinations and expressly considered imposing enhanced costs personally against counsel for failing to verify authorities. The Court also referenced existing guidance in Alberta about keeping a “human in the loop” when using AI. Written commentary summarizing the decision and pointing to the ABCA’s reasoning and the linked court guidance is available.
- In Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233, a self-represented litigant filed a motion record that included at least one hallucinated case and did not comply with the Federal Court’s May 2024 AI practice direction requiring disclosure when AI is used. The Court removed the motion record from the file and awarded costs, describing the undeclared use of AI with non-existent authorities as a serious matter.
What Are the Consequences of Using AI in Canadian Court Proceedings?
The above-noted cases highlight that Canadian courts are not outright banning artificial intelligence systems in legal proceedings; instead, they are requiring human verification and disclosure when AI is used to draft legal submissions. The consequences for using AI systems in court proceedings without following court procedures and practice directives can range from adverse cost awards by the court, monetary penalties for serious misconduct, or having the submissions struck from the record. While it may seem efficient to use a tool like ChatGPT, Claude, or Copilot instead of a lawyer, the consequences can cost time, money, and trust.
Why Is Legal Guidance Important When Using AI for Court Proceedings?
AI tools can accelerate drafting and issue-spotting, but they do not assume responsibility for accuracy, privilege, or strategy. Courts continue to place responsibility on the person whose name is on the filing. Lawyers are trained to verify case law and statutory sources, comply with local AI notices and practice directions, and calibrate remedies and evidence. The experiences in BC and Alberta demonstrate how quickly an unverified AI citation can lead to adverse costs or reputational harm. The Quebec case shows that it can also result in a fine for self-represented litigants who try to cut corners by using AI. For many self-represented litigants, retaining counsel or seeking targeted review is a prudent investment when the alternative may be a struck filing, a monetary sanction, or a loss of credibility with the court.
Need Legal Guidance for a Court Proceeding?
If you’re representing yourself in a legal proceeding or considering using AI tools to prepare court documents, getting legal advice can help you understand your responsibilities and avoid costly mistakes. Contact Kyle at Pushor Mitchell LLP to discuss your situation and the legal guidance available to you.
Frequently Asked Questions About AI in Canadian Court Proceedings
Can You Use ChatGPT or Other AI Tools to Prepare Court Documents in Canada?
Canadian courts have not outright banned the use of AI in legal proceedings. However, people using these tools must verify the accuracy of their legal citations and comply with applicable court procedures and practice directions, including disclosure requirements where applicable.
What Are the Risks of Using AI Instead of a Lawyer for a Court Case?
AI tools can produce inaccurate legal information, including cases and quotations that do not exist. Relying on that information without verification can result in financial penalties, adverse cost awards or court documents being removed from the record. AI tools also cannot take responsibility for legal strategy, evidence, or compliance with court procedures. Consulting with a lawyer, even for a review of documents prepared using AI, can help reduce these risks.
What Happens if AI Invents a Court Case That You Cite in a Legal Filing?
Submitting non-existent cases or quotations can have serious consequences. Depending on the circumstances, courts may order costs or monetary penalties or remove the affected filing from the record.
Can Self-Represented Litigants Be Penalized for Using False AI-Generated Citations?
Yes. In Spectre Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521, a self-represented litigant was ordered to pay $5,000 after relying on non-existent legal authorities and expert quotations.
How Can You Check Whether an AI-Generated Legal Citation Is Real?
Every citation should be checked against an authoritative legal source, such as CanLII, an official court website, or a recognized legal publisher. The person submitting the court documents remains responsible for verifying their accuracy.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. The application of the law depends on the circumstances of each case. Consult a lawyer before acting on this information.
