Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760
Ontario SCJ · Jun 26, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario SCJ
- Record ID
- nady-v-al-sadi-2026-onsc-3760-2026-06-26
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $12,000 CAD in costs, with the court explicitly noting that the amount was increased due to the appellant's irresponsible use of AI.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$12,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the appellant used AI to generate fictitious case law, misrepresent existing authorities, and include fabricated quotes without proper citations. Consequently, the court factored this irresponsible AI usage into its decision to increase the partial indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.
The court reasoned that the appellant's failure to use AI responsibly, which resulted in fictitious authorities and mischaracterized case law, caused time-consuming burdens for the court and opposing parties, justifying an increase in the partial indemnity costs award.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with AI misuse increasing adverse costs award in Ontario SCJ, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$12,000
- Procedural posture
- Appeal of a Small Claims Court judgment dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court).
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 appellant admitted to using AI to prepare his factum.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or 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.