AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAlamleh c. R.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Alamleh c. R.

SC Quebec · Feb 11, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycriminalNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the applicant's request for an extension of time to appeal. While the court did not impose a specific sanction for the AI-generated errors, it explicitly criticized the applicant's failure to verify his submissions, noting that such lapses undermine the administration of justice and can negatively impact the court's assessment of the applicant's credibility.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Representations contained references to inexistent case law identified on review by the Court. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Representations cited an inexistent statute described as the 'Code of Criminal Procedure'. || Fabricated: Case Law | Included inexistent paragraph/pinpoint references to existing judgments (invented paragraph numbers). || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Contained inaccurate/misstated references to the judgment on conviction.
Why it matters now
Pro-se criminal appellant cited a non-existent Code of Criminal Procedure — courts catch invented statutes as fast as invented cases.

Why this matter is tracked

In a judgment regarding an application for an extension of time to appeal a criminal conviction, the Superior Court of Quebec addressed the applicant's use of generative AI in drafting his written representations. The court noted that the applicant admitted to using AI but failed to verify the output, which contained fabricated case law, a non-existent statute titled the 'Code of Criminal Procedure,' and invented pinpoint citations. The court emphasized that while AI tools may assist self-represented litigants, the user bears full responsibility for verifying the accuracy of all generated content before filing. The court ultimately dismissed the application for an extension of time, finding the applicant's arguments lacked merit and his credibility was compromised by his conduct.

Operational lesson

Pro-se criminal appellant cited a non-existent Code of Criminal Procedure — courts catch invented statutes as fast as invented cases.

Record details

CourtSC Quebec
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 11, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe application for an extension of time to appeal the conviction was dismissed.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The applicant admitted to using a generative AI tool.

Procedural posture

Application for extension of time to file an appeal from conviction.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Representations contained references to inexistent case law identified on review by the Court.
  2. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Representations cited an inexistent statute described as the 'Code of Criminal Procedure'.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Included inexistent paragraph/pinpoint references to existing judgments (invented paragraph numbers).
  4. Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Contained inaccurate/misstated references to the judgment on conviction.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Alamleh c. R.?
The court dismissed the applicant's request for an extension of time to appeal. While the court did not impose a specific sanction for the AI-generated errors, it explicitly criticized the applicant's failure to verify his submissions, noting that such lapses undermine the administration of justice and can negatively impact the court's assessment of the applicant's credibility.
Why does Alamleh c. R. matter for legal AI risk?
Pro-se criminal appellant cited a non-existent Code of Criminal Procedure — courts catch invented statutes as fast as invented cases.
What does the public record establish about Alamleh c. R.?
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.
Which source supports this Alamleh c. R. summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Brantford (City) v. Doolittle, 2026 ONCJ 440Ontario CJ · Jul 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedMartin v. Hawai'iD. Hawaii · Aug 20, 2024pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedUnited States of America v. SmithN.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2026pro se + fake citationsUnited States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026pro se + fake citationsRivard v. Dept. of CorrectionsVermont SC · Dec 10, 2025pro se + fake citationsVarma v. The Bank of New York MellonCal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2 · Aug 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified