AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.

Ontario SCJ · Feb 4, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontracttrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court found that counsel used AI to generate a factum containing fabricated quotes and mischaracterized case law. Counsel admitted to failing to verify the content of cited authorities. The court disregarded the factum and reserved the right to consider this misuse of AI when determining final cost awards.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Factum contained a quotation attributed to a Court of Appeal decision that could not be located in the cited decision; counsel could not produce the quoted passage when asked. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Principles set out in RSR's factum did not match the actual findings of Louis Jones Construction Ltd. v. Rocque, 2022 ONSC 2362; the case was mischaracterized.
Why it matters now
If counsel cannot produce the quoted passage on demand, the quote is AI-hallucinated; verify quotations against the source decision pre-filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In a motion to dismiss for delay and for security for costs, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the plaintiff's use of generative AI in drafting its factum. Counsel for the plaintiff admitted to using AI software to prepare the document without verifying the content of cited authorities. The court identified that the factum contained a fabricated quotation attributed to a Court of Appeal decision and mischaracterized the findings in Louis Jones Construction Ltd. v. Rocque, 2022 ONSC 2362. The factum also failed to comply with Rule 4.06.1 regarding certification of authenticity and hyperlinking. The court declined to rely on the factum and reserved the right to factor the AI misuse into future cost awards.

Operational lesson

If counsel cannot produce the quoted passage on demand, the quote is AI-hallucinated; verify quotations against the source decision pre-filing.

Record details

CourtOntario SCJ
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 4, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court disregarded the plaintiff's factum and reserved the right to factor the AI misuse into future cost submissions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Counsel admitted to using AI software but did not name it.

Procedural posture

Motion to dismiss for delay and for security for costs heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Correction behavior

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.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Factum contained a quotation attributed to a Court of Appeal decision that could not be located in the cited decision; counsel could not produce the quoted passage when asked.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Principles set out in RSR's factum did not match the actual findings of Louis Jones Construction Ltd. v. Rocque, 2022 ONSC 2362; the case was mischaracterized.

Questions this record answers

What happened in RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.?
The court found that counsel used AI to generate a factum containing fabricated quotes and mischaracterized case law. Counsel admitted to failing to verify the content of cited authorities. The court disregarded the factum and reserved the right to consider this misuse of AI when determining final cost awards.
Why does RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al. matter for legal AI risk?
If counsel cannot produce the quoted passage on demand, the quote is AI-hallucinated; verify quotations against the source decision pre-filing.
What does the public record establish about RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.?
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 RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al. 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.

Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760Ontario SCJ · Jun 26, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityWellington Hathshire Mortgage Investment Corp et al v. RussellOntario SCJ · Jun 1, 2026same court · misrepresented authority + contractKapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.Ontario SCJ · Mar 10, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + contractMarper Holdings Limited v. Foxpark Development CorporationOntario SCJ · Jun 2, 2026same court · misrepresented authority + trialThe Vancor Group Inc. v. 2744364 Ontario Limited et alOntario SCJ · Oct 28, 2025same court · misrepresented authority + trialJoshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: Unidentified