Cour d'appel du Québec — self-represented appellant
A.P. v. S.K., 2026 QCCA 1092, No. 500-09-700419-252
Sanctioned · 11 August 2026
What was fabricated
Four non-existent decisions cited in the appellant's materials — two presented as Supreme Court of Canada judgments, two as Court of Appeal judgments. AI causation is established by admission: the appellant conceded the authorities were produced by ChatGPT, and the court found he had discovered this before filing and proceeded regardless.
What happened as a result
Monetary sanction of CAD 1,000 under art. 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a substantial breach in the conduct of the proceeding. Panel of Sansfaçon, Bachand and Harvie JJ.A. The court held that misleading the court by deliberately supporting arguments with non-existent decisions, "whether generated by artificial intelligence or otherwise", constitutes a serious breach. The sanctioned party is a self-represented litigant, not a regulated professional, so there is no disciplinary dimension.
Sources
Every incident is confirmed against at least one reputable source (mainstream news, legal/official, or the organisation itself). Nothing unverifiable is listed. Accuracy is non-negotiable — Ukweli is a truth product.