Makongo c. Montpetit
Québec · Mar 3, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Québec
- Record ID
- makongo-c-montpetit-2026-03-03
- Observed outcome
- The Court rejected the litigants' motion and ordered them to pay 800 CAD in compensation to the respondent for procedural misconduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$800
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court of Québec sanctioned pro se litigants for submitting fabricated and misrepresented case law generated by AI. Finding this conduct a significant procedural breach that wasted judicial and party resources, the Court ordered the litigants to pay 800 CAD in compensation to the respondent under Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation could not be located in legal databases; tribunal treated the reference as fictitious. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation provided (QCCA) was introuvable; an existing Supreme Court decision on the same name addresses unrelated issues — principle misattributed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Named neutral citation did not correspond to the case cited (mis-citation/misattribution). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Real criminal-law decision cited and used to support unrelated civil procedural principles (misattribution/irrelevant authority). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Neutral/reference citation corresponded to a different decision (mis-citation); the named decision did not support the principle invoked.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Québec, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$800
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on a motion for stay and annulment of an execution of judgment, including a determination on procedural sanctions for the submission of fabricated legal authorities.
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 litigants initially conceded AI use but later retracted the statement.
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.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.