Bourse de l'Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier
CS Québec · Oct 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CS Québec
- Record ID
- bourse-de-limmobilier-multilogements-inc-c-lanthier-2025-10-29
- Observed outcome
- The court declared the filing contained fictitious citations, constituted a significant breach of procedure, and ordered the party to pay 750 CAD in compensation.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$750
Why this matter warrants attention
The Quebec Superior Court sanctioned a self-represented litigant for filing a document containing AI-generated fictitious case law. The court ordered the party to pay 750 CAD in compensation to the plaintiffs for the time spent verifying the false citations, citing the party's failure to validate the accuracy of the AI-generated content.
Fabricated: Case Law | Document généré par ChatGPT citant une décision inexistante au paragraphe 4.3; la Cour constate la fiction de la référence. || Fabricated: Case Law | Document généré par ChatGPT citant une décision inexistante ou incorrecte; la Cour constate la fiction de la référence. || Fabricated: Case Law | Document généré par ChatGPT citant une décision avec référence incomplète/incorrecte; la Cour conclut qu'il s'agit d'une citation fictive.
Quebec courts will impose costs for ChatGPT-generated fictitious citations even against self-represented parties.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$750
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on a management notice regarding the production of undertakings and the use of AI-generated fictitious citations.
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 party admitted to using ChatGPT.
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.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.