M... G... c. A... C...
QCCS · Dec 23, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- QCCS
- Record ID
- m-g-c-a-c-2025-12-23
- Observed outcome
- The court rejected the motion, declared it abusive, and ordered the litigant to pay 500 CAD for the procedural breach, plus 2,000 CAD in damages and 2,000 CAD in punitive damages for abuse of process.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$4,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in QCCS, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI tool
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$4,500
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on a motion for the reopening of debates, suspension of deliberations, and management measures regarding an apparent conflict of interest.
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 court attributed the fabricated citations to an unspecified AI tool.
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.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.