M... G... c. A... C...
QCCS · Dec 23, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned a pro se litigant 500 CAD for a significant procedural breach after the litigant submitted a motion containing fabricated case law, which the court attributed to AI hallucination. The court also imposed additional damages and punitive damages for the overall abusive nature of the filing.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent judgment to support the motion; court searched by name and reference and found no such authority, concluding it was a fabricated citation likely from AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a second non-existent judgment; court found no record of the cited decision and treated it as a fabricated AI‑generated reference.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in QCCS, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
In a family law proceeding before the Superior Court of Quebec, a pro se litigant filed a motion for the reopening of debates. The motion included citations to two non-existent judicial decisions. The court determined these citations were likely the result of AI-generated hallucinations rather than an intentional attempt to deceive. The court characterized the motion as abusive and a significant procedural breach under Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the court rejected the motion and ordered the litigant to pay 500 CAD in damages for the procedural breach, alongside additional damages and punitive damages for the abusive nature of the filing.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in QCCS, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court attributed the fabricated citations to an unspecified AI tool.
Judgment on a motion for the reopening of debates, suspension of deliberations, and management measures regarding an apparent conflict of interest.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent judgment to support the motion; court searched by name and reference and found no such authority, concluding it was a fabricated citation likely from AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a second non-existent judgment; court found no record of the cited decision and treated it as a fabricated AI‑generated reference.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in M... G... c. A... C...?
- The court sanctioned a pro se litigant 500 CAD for a significant procedural breach after the litigant submitted a motion containing fabricated case law, which the court attributed to AI hallucination. The court also imposed additional damages and punitive damages for the overall abusive nature of the filing.
- Why does M... G... c. A... C... matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in QCCS, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about M... G... c. A... C...?
- 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.
- Which source supports this M... G... c. A... C... 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.