Since the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools, growing concerns have emerged regarding their use in judicial proceedings. Recent decisions have relied on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction parties who make improper use of such tools. More specifically, this provision has been invoked on several occasions to address the use or citation of fictitious case law generated by artificial intelligence, which is then treated as a serious breach of the orderly conduct of proceedings.
Such a situation was notably observed in Bourse de l’Immobilier Multilogements inc. v. Lanthier, rendered on October 29, 2025, by the Superior Court. In this case, the impleaded third party, who represented himself, received a Case Management Notice requiring the disclosure of undertakings subscribed during an examination. In preparation for the hearing, the third party filed a “Response of the Third Party to the Case Management Notice” drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool, without verifying or validating the case law references cited therein.
Counsel for the plaintiffs subsequently reviewed the three (3) decisions relied upon by the third party and found that they were either nonexistent or incorrectly cited. The Court emphasized that improper use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of a pleading, as in this instance, may result in an order requiring the faulty party to pay compensation to indemnify the opposing party for the time spent verifying erroneous information. In determining whether such compensation should be awarded, the Court must assess both the seriousness of the breach and the prejudice suffered. It further clarified that it is not necessary to establish bad faith or an intent to mislead on the part of the faulty party to justify such compensation.
The Court concluded that the “Response of the Third Party to the Case Management Notice” constituted a serious breach of the orderly conduct of proceedings within the meaning of section 342 C.C.P., due to the presence of fictitious case law references. Exercising its discretion, the Court fixed compensation at $750, considering this amount to be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach and the circumstances, including the third party’s lack of legal representation and limited understanding of the tool’s limitations. The Court also emphasizes that any person, whether represented or not, has an obligation to verify the accuracy of the documents they sign and file with the court, particularly when relying on artificial intelligence tools.
Takeaway
It is to be expected that the case law will continue to develop in relation to sanctions arising from the improper use of artificial intelligence tools, given their still limited contribution to judicial proceedings and the growing number of cases involving self-represented litigants. The decision discussed herein serves as a compelling reminder of the need for heightened vigilance when relying on artificial intelligence tools: at the current stage of the law and technology, such tools cannot replace rigorous human verification of the sources and content presented before the courts.
