Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202 (IMM-3886-26)
·Federal Court (Canada)·CADismissal
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.
- Court
- Federal Court (Canada)
- Date
- 2026-09-28
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- The applicants' proposed memorandum of argument in a refugee judicial review listed five cases that could not be found at the citations given and cited real decisions for propositions they do not contain. The applicants did not reply to the respondent's objection, and the court concluded AI was used without careful human judgment.
- Outcome
- Dismissal
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-10-05
What was fabricated or misused
- Kazi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1140 — not found at the citation given
- Lopez Velasco v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1290 — not found at the citation given
- Olarewaju v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1294 — not found at the citation given
- Saint-Vil v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 644 — not found at the citation given
- Yuan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 155 — not found at the citation given
- He v Canada, 2019 FC 2, and Garza v Canada, 2018 FC 155 at paras 28–33, cited for a notice requirement neither states; Garza has only ten paragraphs
- Sitnikova v Canada, 2017 FC 1082, cited for a document-authenticity rule it does not state
What the court said
“The numerous references to incorrect sources suggest that artificial intelligence [AI] tools were used to draft the list of authorities.”
“Citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the Court”
“In the absence of any response from the Applicants to the serious allegations levelled against them, I can only conclude that AI was used in the drafting of the Applicants’ Memorandum of Argument without careful human judgment being applied to the output.”
“AI tools promise efficiency; however, their indiscriminate use in drafting legal arguments constitutes a pernicious threat to the integrity of the judicial process.”
Timeline
- Refugee Protection Division found the claim manifestly unfounded.
- Applicants filed the application for leave and judicial review.
- Applicants moved for an extension of time to serve and file their record.
- Court dismissed the extension motion and the leave application.
Why this case matters
The court used the fake citations as a reason to refuse discretionary relief, the extension of time, rather than as a separate sanction. Justice Lafrenière said the concern was not the legal assistant's miscalculated deadline but the content of the document. The decision adds to a run of 2026 Federal Court immigration rulings, including Djatsa and Sinkova, treating undeclared AI use with hallucinated authorities as an abuse of process.
Practice note
Counsel seeking an extension in the Federal Court should expect the court to read the proposed record, and fabricated authorities can sink the motion. If the other side alleges fake citations, a reply under Rule 369(3) explaining how they arose is the place to address it; silence led the court to infer AI use. AI use in filings should be declared under the court's notice.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
- Notice to the Parties and the Profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court ProceedingsFederal Court of Canada · CA
Similar incidents on the record
- Law Society of Ontario v. Lee, 2026 ONLSTH 1362026-07-16 · Law Society Tribunal (Ontario), Hearing Division · SuspensionThe 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 p…
- Kibondo-Kilongozi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 9282026-07-10 · Federal Court of Canada · WarningIn 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 exi…
- Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 3222025-09-26 · Court of Appeal of Alberta · PendingIn 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.…
- Hussein v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1060; 2025 FC 11382025-06-24 · Federal Court of Canada · Costs orderIn Canada's Federal Court, applicant's counsel used Visto.ai in an immigration matter and filed submissions relying on non-existent cases without declaring the AI use. Associate Judge Catharine Moore found the conduct c…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202 (IMM-3886-26)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/ahmed-v-mci-2026-fc-1202 (accessed 2026-10-05). Data: CC BY 4.0.