9525-1260 Québec inc. c. Donato
SC Québec · Apr 2, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC Québec
- Record ID
- 9525-1260-québec-inc-c-donato-2026-04-02
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, ordering the defendant to sign the closing documents, and declared the sale enforceable if the defendant failed to comply.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the defendant relied on AI-generated legal advice that contained 'hallucinations juridiques' and erroneous interpretations of case documents. The court explicitly discredited these submissions, characterizing the defendant's reliance on them as abusive and ill-founded, and ultimately granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction to enforce the share sale.
The court reasoned that the defendant's reliance on AI-generated advice was 'erronément et de manière abusive' (erroneous and abusive) and that the AI tools produced 'hallucinations juridiques' and an 'interprétation erronée et mal fondée' of the submitted documents, which exacerbated the defendant's unfounded fears regarding the transaction.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants relying on AI tools for legal research. It demonstrates how courts identify and reject AI-generated 'hallucinations' that misinterpret case facts and legal obligations, leading to adverse judicial outcomes.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Interlocutory injunction hearing
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court refers to 'outils d’intelligence artificielle'.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the accuracy of all legal research and citations generated by AI tools before submission to a court.
- Ensure that legal arguments are supported by primary source documents rather than AI-generated summaries or interpretations.
- Monitor pro se filings for potential reliance on unreliable AI-generated legal advice.