Last December, an applicant who was representing herself was found to have referenced non-existent decisions in her filing, which the judge said were probably AI hallucinations. Superior Court Judge Catherine Dagenais fined her $500 for filing a document that \u201ccontained fictional jurisprudential references.\u201d<\/p>\n
And in October, Superior Court Judge Luc Morin fined Jean Laprade $5,000 for including AI-hallucinated decisions in his legal defence.<\/p>\n
It is the very design of AI tools that favour hallucinations, Raso said, meaning advances in the technology are unlikely to resolve the issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese models are designed to use very complex statistical analysis mechanisms to basically predict\u201d a response, she said. \u201cTruth is not part of how the model is designed.\u201d<\/p>\n
The result can be \u201ca citation of a case that doesn\u2019t exist,\u201d she said, or \u201ca provision of a statute that doesn\u2019t exist.\u201d<\/p>\n
AI tools are mostly trained in English, Raso said, which makes them more error-prone in other languages. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn places like Quebec, where the decisions are made in French, there\u2019s a higher risk of error.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Barreau du Qu\u00e9bec, which represents Quebec\u2019s lawyers, says it\u2019s taking actions to ensure its members use AI ethically.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Barreau is the first professional order to require that all its members take a course on the guidelines for ethical use of artificial intelligence,\u201d Barreau director Catherine Ouimet said in a statement.<\/p>\n
Training lawyers \u201cis a good first step,\u201d Raso said, \u201cbut the danger is assuming that AI training will do all the work needed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Many lawyers are feeling pressure to use AI tools, she said, but don\u2019t question how the tools work and what their shortfalls may be.<\/p>\n
The April decision that found arbitrator Jeanniot had cited non-existent court decisions in his ruling was particularly alarming, she said, because it showed that he had abdicated his duty to make a decision himself.<\/p>\n
Arbitrators \u201chave a duty to hear the sides, to reflect on the evidence that\u2019s been provided to them, to think about the law and make an expert judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t just offload this to an algorithmic decision-making system,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s inappropriate on so many levels.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ouimet said the Barreau couldn\u2019t comment on a specific case, so wouldn\u2019t confirm whether or not the association was investigating Jeanniot or other AI-related incidents.<\/p>\n
But she said the organization \u201ccan engage the various mechanisms at its disposal\u201d in cases of ethical breaches, including penalties such as fines, limits on a lawyer\u2019s practice and disbarment.<\/p>\n
Raso said she expected Jeanniot would face some sort of consequence, such as a fine, as well as reputational damage likely to hurt his chances at landing future arbitration gigs.<\/p>\n
Although the arbitrator\u2019s decision was challenged in court, Raso said other decision makers, such as bureaucrats handling immigration and social insurance files, face less legal scrutiny.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a real danger\u201d that AI tools could influence a wide range of decisions, she said.<\/p>\n
If \u201cdecisions are being generated using tools that are unreliable \u2026 that raises fundamental problems for the public\u2019s faith in the justice system,\u201d Raso said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf going to an arbitrator or tribunal member is as reliable as shaking a Magic 8 Ball and getting a result, then why would we even go there? This is a recipe for disaster,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
![\"Profile](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/jack-wilson-2-e1774792320471.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n