Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521
·Cour supérieure du Québec (Quebec Superior Court)·CAFine
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.
- Court
- Cour supérieure du Québec (Quebec Superior Court)
- Date
- 2025-10-01
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A self-represented litigant opposing homologation of an arbitral award filed a contestation with eight instances of nonexistent citations, decisions not rendered, irrelevant references or inconsistent conclusions. He did not dispute relying on AI to generate the contestation. The court found a serious breach of the conduct of proceedings under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Outcome
- Fine
- Penalty
- CA$5,000
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-21
Primary sources for this incident
- Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521 (1 Oct 2025), paragraphs 53–55 and 67 — CanLII judgment PDF mirrored by Damien Charlotin
- Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521 — CanLII; automated access blocked on 21 Sep 2026
- Leads from Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), damiencharlotin.com; each decision re-read and coded by SafeLegalAI
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 622026-08-12 · Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (chambers) · Costs orderThe 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 te…
- 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…
- Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202 (IMM-3886-26)2026-09-28 · Federal Court (Canada) · DismissalIn 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…
- R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or App 182 (2026), A1880922026-09-23 · Oregon Court of Appeals · FineIn Oregon, the Court of Appeals ordered a self-represented restraining-order appellant to pay $250 after his brief cited three fabricated cases he admitted came from AI. The court had threatened $1,500, at $500 per fake…
Summary record: the facts above are verified against the listed sources, but the court's reasoning and later dispositions have not yet been written up. It is excluded from search indexes until that is done.
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521”, safelegalai.com/tracker/specter-aviation-v-laprade (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.