Droit de la famille — 261553
Quebec Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Quebec Court of Appeal
- Record ID
- droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-10-01
- Observed outcome
- The court found that the self-represented appellant used AI negligently without verifying the authorities. It ordered costs in favor of the respondent under article 340 C.C.P., but rejected the requested $10,000 monetary sanction.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The appeal materials cited a judgment that did not exist. The court identified the reference as fabricated and treated it as a failure to verify AI-generated legal authorities. Outcome: The court found that the self-represented appellant used AI negligently without verifying the authorities. It ordered costs in favor of the respondent under article 340 C.C.P., but rejected the requested $10,000 monetary sanction.. The appellant’s appeal materials, prepared using artificial intelligence, contained two references to nonexistent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The Court of Appeal held that AI use is permissible only if the litigant verifies the accuracy of the authorities and complies with the Court’s AI notice. It characterized the conduct as negligence rather than bad faith; unlike a related case involving knowing use of fabricated authorities, the court imposed costs under article 340 C.C.P. rather than a separate $10,000 sanction.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The court found that the self-represented appellant used AI negligently without verifying the authorities. It ordered costs in favor of the respondent under article 340 C.C.P., but rejected the requested $10,000 monetary sanction.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court found that the self-represented appellant used AI negligently without verifying the authorities. It ordered costs in favor of the respondent under article 340 C.C.P., but rejected the requested $10,000 monetary sanction. in Quebec Court of Appeal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court found that the self-represented appellant used AI negligently without verifying the authorities. It ordered costs in favor of the respondent under article 340 C.C.P., but rejected the requested $10,000 monetary sanction.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.