Lessard c. Longuépée
Québec · Nov 26, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Québec
- Record ID
- lessard-c-longuépée-2025-11-26
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim, issuing a formal warning regarding the use of AI in legal research.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant after she submitted four fabricated case law citations generated by ChatGPT. The judge clarified that AI-generated content is not a substitute for official legal research and cannot serve as a foundation for judicial decisions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted 'Leblanc c. Lacasse, C.Q. 2005' from ChatGPT; court found no such decision exists and the AI reference was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted 'Girard c. Roy, 2012 QCCQ 7854' from ChatGPT; court found the referenced neutral citation points to an unrelated judgment and the cited decision does not exist as described. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted 'Beaulieu c. Ferland, 2009 QCCQ 3249' from ChatGPT; court found this decision to be nonexistent and the citation corresponded to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted 'Bujold c. Élevage du Nord, 2018 QCCQ 1649' from ChatGPT; court determined the decision was AI-generated and the neutral citation cited was to an unrelated judgment.
ChatGPT-generated citations continue to draw public warnings — document any AI use and verify in primary sources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on the merits in a small claims contract dispute (Division des petites créances) following a hearing on November 18, 2025.
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 plaintiff informed the court the list came from 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.