Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62
·Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (chambers)·CACosts order
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.
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (chambers)
- Date
- 2026-08-12
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A self-represented appellant used AI tools to transcribe hearing audio and assemble the appeal book. The transcripts contained phantom testimony and 39 discrepancies and carried a fabricated certification page bearing a real court transcriber's name, registration number and signature.
- Outcome
- Costs order
- Penalty
- CA$20,000
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- AI-generated September 15, 2025 transcript; uncertified transcript with material differences, including testimony inaccurately transcribed or not stated by the witness
- AI-generated October 21, 2025 transcript; uncertified transcript with Sue Loney's certification appended though she did not transcribe or certify it
- Certificate of court transcriber page bearing Sue Loney's name, NS Registration Number, and signature; appended to the AI-generated transcripts without a certified transcription
What the court said
“He claims the false certifications are the result of AI hallucinations and not the product of an attempt to mislead Ms. Tanner and this Court.”
“We now know that Mr. Arbuckle did not file a certified transcription from Videoplus or any other certified transcriptionist.”
“He has been non-compliant with the Rules by: (1) providing a certificate of readiness he knew was inaccurate; (2) filing an uncertified transcript on June 3, 2026; (3) filing an uncertified transcript on June 22, 2026; and (4) failing to file a compliant appeal book on the date set by the Court.”
“But for diligent counsel, it could have resulted in an appeal proceeding on an inaccurate record. I conclude the only disposition consistent with the interests of justice is to end an appeal fundamentally tainted by the appellant’s conduct.”
Timeline
- Lower court heard evidence later transcribed in the impugned appeal book.
- Lower court held a further proceeding later included in the uncertified transcripts.
- Videoplus gave a cost estimate, but no transcript order followed.
- Mr. Arbuckle filed an appeal book without the September 15 transcript.
- A supplementary appeal book was filed by the extended deadline.
- Ms. Tanner's counsel notified the Registrar of material transcript differences.
- Court dismissed the appeal and ordered $20,000 in indemnity costs.
Why this case matters
Arbuckle adds a different failure mode from citation cases such as Mata v Avianca and Harber v HMRC. The AI output was not legal authority; it was the record itself. The appeal book appeared compliant because it carried a real transcriber's certification, registration number and signature, yet the transcript contained discrepancies and uncertified material. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal treated that as harm to the appeal process, not a defect cured by another extension. The CAD 20,000 indemnity costs order also shows that self-represented status did not reduce the consequences when an appeal record was filed as if certified.
Practice note
An appellant must order transcripts from a certified court reporter before certifying readiness. AI can help search a private working copy, but it cannot create the filed transcript or certification. Before filing an appeal book, compare every transcript page with the reporter's certified version and confirm the certificate, registration number and signature came from the reporter who prepared that transcript.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- A.P. v. S.K. (Droit de la famille, 261234), 2026 QCCA 10922026-08-11 · Quebec Court of Appeal · SanctionsThe 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 S…
- Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 35212025-10-01 · Cour supérieure du Québec (Quebec Superior Court) · FineIn 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…
- 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…
- Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 2852024-02-20 · Supreme Court of British Columbia · Costs orderThe first reported Canadian case of AI-hallucinated citations: a Vancouver family lawyer cited two ChatGPT-invented cases in a notice of application, was ordered to pay costs personally, had her other files reviewed, an…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62”, safelegalai.com/tracker/arbuckle-v-tanner (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.