RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.
Ontario SCJ · Feb 4, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario SCJ
- Record ID
- rsr-road-surface-recycling-v-bonnechere-excavating-et-al-2026-02-04
- Observed outcome
- The court disregarded the plaintiff's factum and reserved the right to factor the AI misuse into future cost submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
If counsel cannot produce the quoted passage on demand, the quote is AI-hallucinated; verify quotations against the source decision pre-filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Motion to dismiss for delay and for security for costs heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
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
Counsel admitted to using AI software but did not name it.
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.
- Do not treat a paid legal-research product as a substitute for source verification.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.