Incident Tracker

Legal AI incidents · Canada

11 verified incidents · as of 2026-10-05

2026-09-28Dismissal
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202 (IMM-3886-26)
In Canada, the Federal Court refused a late filing in a refugee judicial review because the proposed memorandum cited five cases that could not be found and misstated others. Justice Lafrenière inferred unchecked AI use, called fake citations an abuse of process, and dismissed the leave application. No costs were ordered because the respondent sought none.
2026-08-12Costs order
Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed a family-law appeal for failure to perfect it and ordered lump-sum costs of CAD 20,000 after the self-represented appellant filed AI-generated transcripts containing invented testimony and a forged transcriber's certificate. Gogan J.A. rejected his explanation that the AI had hallucinated the certification, calling the filing knowingly misleading.
2026-08-11Sanctions
A.P. v. S.K. (Droit de la famille, 261234), 2026 QCCA 1092
The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered a self-represented family-law appellant to pay CAD 1,000 under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure after he conceded that four cited judgments, including two attributed to the Supreme Court of Canada, were ChatGPT fabrications. The court held that litigants cannot assume AI output is free of hallucinations.
2026-07-16Suspension
Law Society of Ontario v. Lee, 2026 ONLSTH 136
The Law Society Tribunal suspended Toronto lawyer Jisuh Lee's licence for six months and ordered CAD 10,000 in costs after she filed a factum containing AI-generated fictitious or irrelevant precedents in a family law proceeding that had become an estate matter. It follows Mazaheri (June 2026) and is reported as Ontario's first licence suspension for AI misuse.
2026-07-10Warning
Kibondo-Kilongozi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 928
In a judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada concerning a Congolese child's adoption-based visa, Justice Gascon expressly found that a Federal Court of Appeal decision cited by the applicants' counsel did not exist. The finding accompanied criticism of counsel's non-compliance with scheduling orders, though the court recorded no separate costs sanction for the fabricated citation.
2025-12-04Regulatory referral
Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965
In Ontario, lawyer Jisuh Lee filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then admitted she had lied about authorship after initially blaming others. Justice Myers referred a criminal-contempt prosecution to Ontario's Attorney General, and the Law Society Tribunal later suspended Lee for six months and ordered CAD 10,000 costs for misconduct including dishonesty.
2025-10-01Fine
Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521
In Quebec, the Superior Court ordered self-represented litigant Jean Laprade to pay CAD $5,000 under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure after his AI-assisted contestation contained eight instances of fabricated or irrelevant citations and inconsistent conclusions. The judgment identifies no AI product used by Laprade and also homologates the arbitral award.
2025-09-26Pending
Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322
In Alberta, the Court of Appeal held counsel responsible for a contractor-drafted factum containing seven nonexistent authorities. Its September 2025 judgment invited submissions on personal costs against lead counsel. The reported January 2026 costs order remains unconfirmed against its primary text; no amount from that later report is recorded here.

SafeLegalAIrecords: safelegalai.com/tracker/canada · CC BY 4.0 · not advice · no warranty