Artificial intelligence has begun reshaping how lawyers, companies, and even individuals prepare legal documents. But two recent Canadian decisions one from the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) and another from the Federal Court show that using AI tools without verification can have serious consequences.
The First Warning: Choi (Re) (CIRB, July 2024)
In 2024, the CIRB dealt with complaints filed by a self-represented worker, Munchang Choi, against his former employer, Lloyd’s Register Canada Limited.
Although the complaints were dismissed for being filed too late, the case became notable for another reason: the complainant had used an AI tool to draft lengthy legal submissions. The Board discovered that his documents contained more than thirty invented case citations.
The CIRB emphasized that parties remain responsible for what they file, even if AI was used to assist them. It warned that unverified AI content undermines credibility and can damage confidence in the justice system. The Board echoed the Federal Court’s direction that anyone using AI in legal work must verify every citation and keep a “human in the loop” to confirm accuracy.
The Second Warning: Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd v. Choi (Federal Court, 2025)
Less than a year later, the same parties appeared before the Federal Court. Lloyd’s Register asked the Court to strike out a motion from Mr. Choi, arguing that it was frivolous and an abuse of process.
The Court noted that Mr. Choi had again relied on AI-generated material and that this was not his first misuse of such tools. Although he said the errors were accidental, the Court found that he had not shown adequate responsibility or remorse.
Referring to its Notice to Parties on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings (issued in 2024), the Court reminded litigants that they must disclose if their filings include AI-generated content. It stressed that submitting documents containing fabricated or “hallucinated” authorities without disclosure is a serious matter that threatens the integrity of the judicial process.
To preserve public confidence in the courts, the judge ordered that Mr. Choi’s motion record be removed from the file and awarded costs to the employer.
Leave a Reply