Abdul Rahim Seidu v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Federal Court (Canada) · Feb 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court (Canada)
- Record ID
- abdul-rahim-seidu-v-minister-of-citizenship-and-immigration-2026-02-10
- Observed outcome
- The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and admonished counsel for the submission of fictitious case law and failure to properly correct the motion record.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court admonished counsel for submitting a motion record containing fictitious case law and subsequently failing to correct the underlying unsupported legal propositions after removing the fake citations. The Court emphasized that counsel must comply with the May 7, 2024, practice notice requiring mandatory disclosure of AI use and human verification of all AI-generated content.
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion record (Exhibit A to Lejeune affidavit) cited four Federal Court decisions that were non-existent; Minister notified counsel these cases did not exist and the Court flagged possible AI-generated fabrication. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Erroneous legal propositions in the motion record were initially supported by fictitious case citations and later had the fictitious citations removed, leaving unsupported legal assertions.
Removing fake citations after the fact leaves unsupported assertions — rebuild the argument, do not just delete the footnotes.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Legal Authority
- Misrepresentation Of Law
- Failure To Verify AI Output
- Inadequate Remedial Action After Error Discovery
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, including a preliminary motion for leave to file supplementary evidence.
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 identified the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.