In re Robert Giroux
CS Québec · Nov 26, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CS Québec
- Record ID
- in-re-robert-giroux-2025-11-26
- Observed outcome
- Currently pending appeal
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The tracked record concerns the November 2025 Quebec Superior Court judgment in 2025 QCCS 4157 involving Robert Giroux and the Groupe Huot investment dispute. Contemporary reporting says the judgment ordered Giroux to pay about $128 million and that he appealed. The AI-related material is not a court finding in the retrieved reporting: Giroux’s lawyers alleged in the appeal that the judgment contained passages presented as verbatim evidence that were not in the record and references to non-existent case law, characterizing the anomalies as resembling AI-assisted-drafting hallucinations.…
Not established in the retrieved source. The reported AI-related assertions come from the appellant’s appeal materials, while the first-instance judgment’s reasoning was separately challenged on several merits issues.
It is a high-stakes example of why allegations about AI use by a court must be labeled as allegations and tied to appellate posture.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Currently pending appeal
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 linked news report is reliable reporting about the appeal but is not the appellate disposition. The referenced CanLII judgment was identified, but its full text was not retrieved in this pass.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Allegation status: no adjudicated finding is represented by this brief.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Do not describe AI use by the judge as proven.
- State that the cited anomalies are allegations advanced on appeal.
- Refresh the record when the appellate court resolves the challenge.