AI Hallucination Cases

"Mr. Obermann’s submissions refer to cases that do not exist or do not apply. I find the most likely explanation is that they are “hallucinations” generated by artificial intelligence. In AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907 at paragraph 16, a CRT vice chair found that CRT’s obligation to provide sufficient reasons did not require it to address arguments with no basis in law. I agree with this reasoning and do not address those cases. "

"[134] Même si l’arbitre de griefs est un tribunal administratif moins formel que le sont laCour supérieure ou les autres tribunaux judiciaires, notamment parce que ses règles depreuve sont plus souples, il n’en demeure pas moins que c’est un tribunal. À l’évidence,le procureur qui, devant ce tribunal, s’appuie sur de la jurisprudence doit s’assurer qu’elleexiste.

[135] L’arbitre de griefs s’attend à ce que tous les procureurs qui plaident devant luisoient compétents, honnêtes, professionnels et respectueux de son autorité.Manifestement, celui qui soumet au tribunal des références jurisprudentielles inexistantesne satisfait pas ces attentes, car il induit, intentionnellement ou non, le tribunal et la partieadverse en erreur.

[136] Qui plus est, le procureur qui fait référence à de la jurisprudence qui n’existe pasrallonge inutilement l’arbitrage. On reproche déjà, souvent avec raison, la longueur etles coûts élevés associés à l’arbitrage de griefs. Ces problèmes seront exacerbés si lesinformations inexactes générées par les hallucinations d’outils d’intelligence artificielles’introduisent devant les tribunaux d’arbitrage en raison de la négligence des procureurs.Le présent cas en est un bon exemple.

[137] Enfin, le procureur qui fait référence à de la jurisprudence inexistante expose lapartie qu’il représente à devoir compenser les dommages que cela pourrait causer àl’autre partie.

[138] En définitive, référer à des décisions qui n’existent pas, comme l’a fait laprocureure patronale dans le présent dossier, est un geste répréhensible qui ne devraitjamais se produire en arbitrage de griefs. Ce comportement est d’autant plus grave quecette procureure est membre de l’Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés."

Costs were awarded here.

(Monetary sanction decided in later determination, available here.)

The appellant cited two reported decisions which the Board could not locate and concluded likely do not exist and may have been generated with AI; the Board excluded those authorities from evidence and cautioned the appellant about nondisclosure of AI per the Board's Code of Conduct.

Monsieur Laprade filed a contestation containing multiple citations to non-existent authorities generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The Court found these to be fabricated (so-called "hallucinated") citations, constituting a manquement important to the conduct of the proceeding under art. 342 C.p.c., and imposed a 5,000$ sanction.

The appellant's original factum contained references to seven cases that could not be located (six allegedly decisions of this Court). Respondent flagged the issue; appellant's counsel ultimately acknowledged a contractor-drafted factum and that a large language model may have been used. The Court allowed an amended factum and reserved costs, warning that use of LLM without verification may attract costs, contempt proceedings, or Law Society referral.

Monetary sanction was determined in a subsequent decision (available here).

The applicant relied on numerous case citations that the Board and OSSTF could not locate as cited; one located decision did not support the proposition relied upon. Applicant acknowledged possible citation errors and was asked to provide copies but objected. The Board refused to rely on unlocatable authorities and dismissed the application.

The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, used generative AI tools for drafting and preliminary research, leading to the citation of a non-existent case, 'Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777', in his Motion Record. The Court found this to be a fabricated citation, and the (allegedly) intended citation pointed to an irrelevant case.

The court further pointed out that the Respondent had already been caught fabricating citations in a previous proceeding. Despite acknowledging use of AI, the respondent had also failed to provide the declaration on this point required by the AI Practice Direction. The Court ordered the removal of the Motion Record from the file. Costs of $500 CAD were awarded to the Applicant.

In the case AQ v. BW, the applicant AQ claimed damages for the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image by the respondent BW. Both parties were self-represented. The tribunal found that BW shared an intimate image of AQ without consent, violating the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). BW attempted to defend their actions by citing a fabricated version of CRTA section 92, which was identified as a hallucination likely generated by artificial intelligence. Judge held:

"16. I have considered my obligation to give sufficient reasons. I do not consider that obligation to include responding to arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law. I accept that artificial intelligence can be a useful tool to help people find the right language to present their arguments, if used properly. However, people who blindly use artificial intelligence often end up bombarding the CRT with endless legal arguments. They cannot reasonably expect the CRT to address them all. So, while I have reviewed all the parties’ materials and considered all their arguments, I have decided against addressing many of the issues they raise. If I do not address a particular argument in this decision, it is because the argument lacks any merit, is about something plainly irrelevant, or both."

The tribunal dismissed BW's defenses as baseless and awarded AQ $5,000 in damages and an additional $1,000 for time spent due to BW's submission of irrelevant evidence. The tribunal emphasized that arguments concocted by AI without legal basis would not be addressed.

In the original order, the court held:

"[38] Applicants’ counsel provided further correspondence advising, for the first time, of his reliance on Visto.ai described as a professional legal research platform designed specifically for Canadian immigration and refugee law practitioners. He also indicated that he did not independently verify the citations as they were understood to reflect well established and widely accepted principles of law. In other words, the undeclared and unverified artificial intelligence had no impact, and the substantive legal argument was unaffected and supported by other cases.

[39] I do not accept that this is permissible. The use of generative artificial intelligence is increasingly common and a perfectly valid tool for counsel to use; however, in this Court, its use must be declared and as a matter of both practice, good sense and professionalism, its output must be verified by a human. The Court cannot be expected to spend time hunting for cases which do not exist or considering erroneous propositions of law.

[40] In fact, the two case hallucinations were not the full extent of the failure of the artificial intelligence product used. It also hallucinated the proper test for the admission on judicial review of evidence not before the decision-maker and cited, as authority, a case which had no bearing on the issue at all. To be clear, this was not a situation of a stray case with a variation of the established test but, rather, an approach similar to the test for new evidence on appeal. As noted above, the case relied upon in support of the wrong test (Cepeda-Gutierrez) has nothing to do with the issue. I note in passing that the case comprises 29 paragraphs and would take only a few minutes to review.

[41] In addition, counsel’s reliance on artificial intelligence was not revealed until after the issuance of four Directions. I find that this amounts to an attempt to mislead the Court and to conceal the reliance by describing the hallucinated authorities as “mis-cited” Had the initial request for a Book of Authorities resulted in the explanation in the last letter, I may have been more sympathetic. As matters stand, I am concerned that counsel does not recognize the seriousness of the issue."

In the final order, the court added:

"While the use of generative AI is not the responsibility of the responding party, it was not appropriate for the Respondent to not make any response to the Court’s four directions and Order. Indeed, assuming that the Respondent noticed the hallucinated cases on receipt of the written argument, it should have brought this to the attention of the Court.

[...]

Given that Applicant’s counsel was not remunerated for his services in the file, which included the motion on which the offending factum was filed and a motion for a stay of removal and, in addition, that I am also of the view that the Respondent’s lack of action exacerbated matters and it should not benefit as a result, I am ordering a modest amount of $100 to be payable by Applicant’s counsel personally."

In the case of J.R.V. v. N.L.V., the respondent, appearing in person, used a generative AI tool to prepare parts of her written argument. This resulted in the inclusion of citations to non-existent cases, known as 'hallucinations.' The claimant sought costs due to the need to research and respond to these false citations. The court acknowledged the issue but noted that the respondent was not represented by counsel and was unaware of the AI's capability to generate false citations. Moreover, the claimant was wrong as to the alleged non-existence of some citations. The court ordered the respondent to pay $200 in costs to the claimant.

"[49] Mr. Ohenhen submitted a statement of legal argument to the court in support of his arguments. In those documents, he referred to at least two non-existent or fake precedent court cases, one ostensibly from the Court of Appeal for Ontario and another ostensibly from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reviewing his materials after argument, I tried to access these cases and was unable to find them. I asked the parties to provide them to me.

[50] Mr. Ohenhen responded with a “clarification”, providing different citations to different cases. I asked for an explanation as to where the original citations came from, and specifically, whether they were generated by artificial intelligence. I have received no response to that query.

[51] While Mr. Ohenhen is not a lawyer with articulated professional responsibilities to the court, every person who submits authorities to the court has an obligation to ensure that those authorities exist. Simple CanLII searches would have revealed to Mr. Ohenhen that these were fictitious citations. Putting fictitious citations before the court misleads the court. It is unacceptable. Whether the cases are put forward by a lawyer or self-represented party, the adverse effect on the administration of justice is the same.

[52] Mr. Ohenhen’s failure to provide a direct and forthright answer to the court’s questions is equally concerning.

[53] Court processes are not voluntary suggestions, to be complied with if convenient or helpful to one’s case. The proper administration of justice requires parties to respect the rules and proceed in a forthright manner. That has not happened here.

[54] I have not attached any consequences to this conduct in this case. However, should such conduct be repeated in any court proceedings, Mr. Ohenhen should expect consequences. Other self-represented litigants should be aware that serious consequences from such conduct may well flow."

(Order to show cause is here.)

At the end of the show cause proceedings, Justice Myers noted that, due to the media reports about this case, the goals of any further contempt proceedings were already met, including: "maintaining the dignity of the court and the fairness of civil justice system, promoting honourable behaviour by counsel before the court, denouncing serious misconduct, deterring similar future misconduct by the legal profession, the public generally, and by Ms. Lee specifically, and rehabilitation".

The judge therefore declined to impose a fine or to continue the contempt proceedings, on the condition that Counsel undertakes Continuing Professional Development courses (as she said she would), and does not bill her client for any unrelated work (which was helped by the fact that she had so far been working pro bono).

Sequel

It later surfaced that Ms. Lee had not been fully honest with the court, leading to renewed contempt proceedings (see here).