Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario
Law Society Tribunal (ON) · Jun 12, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Law Society Tribunal (ON)
- Record ID
- mazaheri-v-law-society-of-ontario-2026-06-12
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $31,150 in costs to the Law Society.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$31,150
Why this matter warrants attention
The Law Society Tribunal (ON) ordered the respondent to pay $31,150 in costs to the Law Society. The panel determined that the lawyer's irresponsible use of generative AI (Grok) to produce court materials—specifically the inclusion of hallucinated case law and misapplied procedural rules—caused significant, avoidable delays and necessitated additional judicial and opposing counsel resources.
The Tribunal reasoned that the lawyer's failure to verify AI-generated materials constituted a breach of his professional responsibility. The panel noted that the submissions were incoherent, cited non-existent cases, and misapplied procedural rules. The Tribunal determined that the resulting loss of hearing time and the necessity of case management sittings to address the defective filings justified a full costs award, serving as a denunciation of the irresponsible use of AI in legal practice.
This case establishes a clear precedent for cost sanctions in the Law Society Tribunal (ON) for the irresponsible use of generative AI. It underscores that lawyers are strictly liable for the accuracy of AI-generated filings and that failure to verify output can lead to significant financial consequences.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Grok
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$31,150
- Procedural posture
- The matter arose from a motion to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension, followed by an admissibility and bias motion. The Tribunal issued this decision specifically regarding the costs of these motions.
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 lawyer admitted to using Grok for research and drafting.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to Grok output as to any other research input.