S… F… c. I… O…
Québec SC · Oct 31, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Québec SC
- Record ID
- s-f-c-i-o-2025-10-31
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a formal warning to the defendant regarding the use of AI-generated fabricated citations and misrepresented legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$0
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant who used ChatGPT to generate legal submissions containing fabricated case law and misrepresented statutory provisions. The judge explicitly warned that future reliance on such inaccurate AI-generated content would result in potential abuse-of-process sanctions.
The court reasoned that the defendant's use of ChatGPT resulted in the presentation of non-existent case law and inaccurate statutory interpretations that contradicted the actual text of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court determined that these actions wasted judicial resources and prejudiced the opposing party. Although the court cited a precedent (Specter Aviation) where similar conduct resulted in a $5,000 penalty, it exercised discretion to issue only a warning, noting that the defendant was pro se and that the warning served as a sufficient deterrent for a first instance of such conduct.
ChatGPT flips statutory meaning — never quote a code provision without pulling the primary source.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$0
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on a motion to split the proceeding (scission d'instance) and a request for divorce, following a hearing on October 24, 2025.
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 defendant admitted to the court that he prepared his arguments using ChatGPT.
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 rely on consumer AI output as legal authority without independent verification.