Iman Reza Saeidi v. Behzad Malaei Davu
SCJ Ontario · May 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SCJ Ontario
- Record ID
- iman-reza-saeidi-v-behzad-malaei-davu-2025-05-30
- Observed outcome
- The Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs in the amount of $1,660.30.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$1,660
Why this matter warrants attention
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,660.30 in costs after their representative admitted to using AI to generate a factum containing four fabricated case citations. The Court characterized the submission of fake cases as an abuse of process, though it could not order the representative to pay personally due to procedural limitations in the Small Claims Court Rules.
The Court reasoned that citing fake cases is an abuse of process and tantamount to making false statements to the court. The judge determined that the plaintiff's representative failed to provide a proper explanation or apology for the false citations, which varied significantly from the original nonexistent references. Although the judge stated that the representative's conduct warranted personal cost liability, the Court was constrained by the Small Claims Court Rules in effect at the time, which did not allow for costs to be ordered against a party's representative.
This case highlights the risks of using AI for legal research without verification. It demonstrates judicial intolerance for fabricated citations as an abuse of process and illustrates the limitations of cost-shifting mechanisms when procedural rules do not yet allow for direct sanctions against non-lawyer representatives.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$1,660
- Procedural posture
- Motion for costs following the correction of a problematic writ and the discovery of fabricated case law in the plaintiff's factum.
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 representative admitted the factum was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all AI-generated legal citations against primary source databases.
- Review firm policies regarding the use of generative AI in drafting court submissions.
- Ensure that any identified errors in filings are addressed with transparency and prompt disclosure to the court.