Lozano González v. Roberge
Housing Administrative Tribunal · May 1, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Tribunal rejected the landlord's repossession request because the notice was legally invalid. It also declined to sanction the landlord for abuse, concluding that his reliance on an AI-generated translation of the Civil Code of Quebec, while erroneous, did not constitute bad faith or recklessness under the applicable legal standard.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal reasoned that the landlord's reliance on an AI-generated translation of the Civil Code of Quebec, while resulting in a grave error, did not meet the threshold for 'abuse' or 'recklessness' required to award damages, as the landlord held a sincere belief in his interpretation.
- Why it matters now
- AI translations of foreign-language statutes are unreliable—always engage qualified counsel for cross-border civil code interpretation.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Legal Norm | False translation of Articles 1960 and 1962 from the Code civil du Québec. The landlord sought to repossess a rental property, claiming the lease renewal was suspended based on a misinterpretation of Quebec's civil code articles. He used ChatGPT to translate these articles, which resulted in a completely different meaning. The Tribunal found the repossession request invalid as it was based on a date prior to the lease's end. The Tribunal rejected the claim of abuse, accepting the landlord's sincere belief in his misinterpretation, influenced by AI translation, and noted his language barrier and residence in Mexico. The Tribunal advised the landlord to seek reliable legal advice in the future.
AI translations of foreign-language statutes are unreliable—always engage qualified counsel for cross-border civil code interpretation.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The landlord admitted to using ChatGPT for translation.
Adjudicated decision by the Housing Administrative Tribunal following a hearing on the landlord's request to repossess a rental property.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | False translation of Articles 1960 and 1962 from the Code civil du Québec.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lozano González v. Roberge?
- The Tribunal rejected the landlord's repossession request because the notice was legally invalid. It also declined to sanction the landlord for abuse, concluding that his reliance on an AI-generated translation of the Civil Code of Quebec, while erroneous, did not constitute bad faith or recklessness under the applicable legal standard.
- Why does Lozano González v. Roberge matter for legal AI risk?
- AI translations of foreign-language statutes are unreliable—always engage qualified counsel for cross-border civil code interpretation.
- What does the public record establish about Lozano González v. Roberge?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Lozano González v. Roberge summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.