HOME/JURISDICTIONS/CA

CA — Country Profile

Canada

223TOTAL
146OFFICIAL SOURCES
24TOPIC AREAS
Law / Act11
Policy / Guidance11
National Strategy10
Standard / Framework2
International Agreement7
Working Paper6
Court Case137
Other39
AI GovernanceAgentic AiAntitrust & CompetitionCopyright & IpCultureCybersecurityData Privacy & ProtectionDeepfakesDefense & National SecurityDefense & SecurityEnergy & EnvironmentGenerative AIHealth & Life SciencesHuman Rights & EthicsInfrastructure & HardwareJudicial & Law EnforcementLiability & AccountabilityLogistics & InfrastructureMedia & EntertainmentNational StrategyOnline Safety & Child ProtectionResearchSandboxTrade & Investment
Court Case✓ Official

Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the B.C. Supreme Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Original Notice of Civil Claim contained references to non-existent court decisions appearing to be AI-generated; AGC raised the issue and Justice Dion ordered Part 3 struck and that any AI-assisted citations be verified prior to filing; plaintiff removed those references i... Outcome: Brief part struck.

Court: B.C. Supreme CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant
31 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Iyer v Nazir

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the CA Alberta. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants' reply memorandum relied on several non-existent case authorities; citations tied to real cases but the cited authorities as presented did not exist or were otherwise incorrect; court cautioned such errors can arise from AI assistance. Outcome: Warning.

Court: CA AlbertaParty: Pro Se Litigant
23 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

National Indigenous Fisheries Institute v. Canada AG

Lawyer appeared before the Federal Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Affidavit of in-house counsel cited this purported FCA decision to support extension of time; Court found the decision does not exist and treated it as AI-generated. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Court: Federal CourtParty: Lawyer
Fine: 1 CAD
20 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Salah v. Peel Condominium Corporation

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the ONCAT. Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant provided a citation that actually belonged to another Tribunal decision (misattributed/fictitious use). Outcome: Warning.

Court: ONCATParty: Pro Se Litigant
19 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
No link available
Court Case✓ Official

Re Reza Khoshnik

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy). Misrepresented: Case Law | Bankrupt quoted and attributed a proposition to Re Fakoori that he later admitted was manufactured by his materials. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Court: Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy)Party: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
Fine: 1 CAD
16 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Law Society of Alberta v. Tiwana

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Law Society of Alberta Appeal Panel. Fabricated: Case Law | AI-generated hallucinated case cited in appellant's brief; LSA counsel could not locate it and appellant admitted it was a 'placeholder'. Outcome: AI misuse as aggravating factor for awarding costs.

Court: Law Society of Alberta Appeal PanelParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
Fine: 1 CAD
12 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Krivaia v. Hungerford

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the SC British Columbia. Fabricated: Case Law | Earlier iterations of the Plaintiffs' pleadings (NOCC, ANOCC, FANOCC) cited case authorities that did not exist and were characterized as AI‑hallucinated; the fictitious references were removed in the Proposed 2FANOCC. Outcome: No strike for abuse of process.

Court: SC British ColumbiaParty: Pro Se Litigant
11 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Kapahi Real Estate Inc. v. Elite Real Estate Club of Toronto Inc.

Lawyer appeared before the Ontario SCJ. False Quotes: Case Law | Paragraph 44 of the Reply Factum purports to quote BH Frontier Solutions Inc. v. 11054660 Canada Inc.; the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the decision and is wholly made up. Outcome: Bar Referral.

Court: Ontario SCJParty: Lawyer
10 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Siemens v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3699

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the CRT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a case in support of remedies that the tribunal found did not exist or did not apply; tribunal concluded it was likely AI-generated and rejected reliance on it.

Court: CRTParty: Pro Se Litigant
10 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Thabize c. Immobilière montérégienne IMR inc.

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the TAL. Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant cited a purported decision 'Événtail Habitation inc. c. X, 2023 QCTAL 150'; tribunal (citing opposing party's point) found the jurisprudence unlocatable and likely produced by artificial intelligence. Outcome: Further filings barred without prior authorization.

Court: TALParty: Pro Se Litigant
6 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Court. Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated.

Court: Federal CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
5 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Makongo c. Montpetit

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Québec. Fabricated: Case Law | Citation could not be located in legal databases; tribunal treated the reference as fictitious. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Court: QuébecParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
⚠ Professional sanction imposedFine: 800 CAD
3 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Asey v. The Association of Justice Counsel

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the HRT Ontario. Fabricated: Case Law | Tribunal observed that many cases cited by the applicant appear to be non-existent or 'manufactured' and do not stand for the principles asserted.

Court: HRT OntarioParty: Pro Se Litigant
3 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Re Gary Man Kin Ng

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy). Fabricated: Case Law | Bankrupt cited 'Galty B.V. (Re), 2021 ONSC 7250'; court found no such decision at that citation in CanLII or Westlaw and paragraph references did not match existing Galty decisions; Bankrupt admitted reliance on AI.

Court: Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy)Party: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
2 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Maruta v. Mahon

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the HRT Ontario. Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited authorities that 'do not stand for the proposition she sought to advance', i.e., mischaracterized existing cases.

Court: HRT OntarioParty: Pro Se Litigant
2 March 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

White v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3946

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the BC CRT. Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicants' submissions included multiple incorrect or inapplicable CRT case citations; tribunal found these were likely AI-generated and did not address arguments with no legal basis.

Court: BC CRTParty: Pro Se Litigant
27 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

N… R… c. M… S…

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Québec SC. False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Partial fabrication/manipulation of a quotation attributed to the DPJ; the court reviewed the records and could not find the quoted wording as presented. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Québec SCParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
18 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

14095863 Canada Inc. v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Canadian IPO. Fabricated: Case Law | Registrar identified multiple cited cases that do not appear to exist in the Requesting Party's written representations and flagged them as fabricated; Registrar noted these appeared across several paragraphs and undermined the submissions.

Court: Canadian IPOParty: Pro Se Litigant
17 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

HDO v MDF

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the CA Alberta. Fabricated: Case Law | Several cited cases did not exist; provided links directed the court to a large language model platform webpage indicating the citations were fabricated by AI. Outcome: Warning.

Court: CA AlbertaParty: Pro Se Litigant
17 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Deblois v. Procureur Général

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited Federal Court of Appeal decisions that could not be located; after a court directive she admitted by email the decisions were not retrievable and the court gave such arguments no weight.

Court: Federal CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant
16 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Alamleh c. R.

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the SC Quebec. Fabricated: Case Law | Representations contained references to inexistent case law identified on review by the Court.

Court: SC QuebecParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
11 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Garrick v Halton Police Board

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the SCJ Ontario.

Court: SCJ OntarioParty: Pro Se Litigant
10 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Abdul Rahim Seidu v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Lawyer appeared before the Federal Court (Canada). Fabricated: Case Law | Motion record (Exhibit A to Lejeune affidavit) cited four Federal Court decisions that were non-existent; Minister notified counsel these cases did not exist and the Court flagged possible AI-generated fabrication. Outcome: Admonishment.

Court: Federal Court (Canada)Party: Lawyer
10 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Applicant v. BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the HPRB. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited Singh v. CPSBC (2009 BCSC); the Review Board was unable to locate the decision and noted the citation may be in error.

Court: HPRBParty: Pro Se Litigant
5 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

RSR Road Surface Recycling v Bonnechere Excavating et al.

Lawyer used Unidentified in proceedings before the Ontario SCJ. False Quotes: Case Law | Factum contained a quotation attributed to a Court of Appeal decision that could not be located in the cited decision; counsel could not produce the quoted passage when asked. Outcome: Misuse of AI potentially factored into costs.

Court: Ontario SCJParty: LawyerTool: Unidentified
4 February 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Rasko v. ICBC

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the BC CRT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698' for the proposition that a sudden unnecessary stop can share fault; Tribunal found the case does not exist and that ICBC had raised the issue.

Court: BC CRTParty: Pro Se Litigant
30 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Howse v. Coulton

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the BC CRT. Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111' to argue claims beyond CRT limits must be transferred; Tribunal found no such case exists and characterized the citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination.

Court: BC CRTParty: Pro Se Litigant
29 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Davidson v PCL Constructors Inc.

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the HRT Alberta. Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant relied on a non-existent case cited as authority; Tribunal found there is no such authority and treated the citation as erroneous, noting respondent alleged AI/LLM produced it but declining to find that.

Court: HRT AlbertaParty: Pro Se Litigant
27 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Gu v Fogler Rubinoff

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the SCJ Ontario. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's factum included at least two fully cited cases and quoted passages that could not be located; responding party brought this to court's attention; applicant's daughter conceded they were created by AI.

Court: SCJ OntarioParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
23 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Zou v. Miracon Development Inc.

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the SC British Columbia. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs submitted non-existent case citations generated by AI; the defence identified them as fictitious and the Court treated them as AI 'hallucinations' and imposed costs. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Court: SC British ColumbiaParty: Pro Se Litigant
Fine: 200 CAD
20 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Pellegrino v. York Condominium Corporation No. 486

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited a non-existent Tribunal decision 'Wu v TSCC 1754, 2021 ONCAT 63'; the Tribunal found the case does not exist and warned such citations may incur cost consequences. Outcome: Warning.

Court: CATParty: Pro Se Litigant
20 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Waddell (Re)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Ontario SCJ. Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Waddell's initial factum listed 16 authorities with no citations/hyperlinks and raised concern they might be AI-generated fabrications; directed Waddell to provide proper cites or explain absence; Waddell later filed a revised factum with five cited cases.

Court: Ontario SCJParty: Pro Se Litigant
20 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a nonexistent case 'Manitoba v. CHRC, 2016 FC 836' as authority for a proposition about reply affidavits; Court found no such case at that citation and that the paragraphs cited did not support the proposition. Outcome: Admonishment.

Court: Federal CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant
19 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Vasina v. York Condominium Corporation No. 486

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the ONCAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited this case; Tribunal found no record of it and stated it does not exist and cannot be relied upon.

Court: ONCATParty: Pro Se Litigant
12 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's memorandum contained references to jurisprudence that did not exist; the Respondent flagged the issue and the Court disregarded the unreliable case citations.

Court: Federal CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: Unidentified
9 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Riley Pollard v UNIFOR Local 324

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Ontario LRB. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Opposing party alleged Mr. Pollard's written submissions included references to Board Rules that did not exist or were mischaracterized; Board noted the allegation, found Rules 2.4 and 5.1 were properly cited, and ignored other inaccurate rule citations.

Court: Ontario LRBParty: Pro Se Litigant
6 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Bahrani v Peters

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the CA Saskatchewan. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases. Outcome: Misuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed.

Court: CA SaskatchewanParty: Pro Se Litigant
5 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the BC CRT. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited non-existent CRT cases throughout submissions; tribunal identified these as likely AI-generated and declined to address arguments based on them.

Court: BC CRTParty: Pro Se Litigant
5 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Dudak (Re)

Pro Se Litigant used ChatGPT in proceedings before the SafeRoads Alberta. Fabricated: Case Law | Recipient cited this authority in support; adjudicator found the citation did not correspond to a relevant authority and appears fabricated or misattributed and therefore was not considered.

Court: SafeRoads AlbertaParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: ChatGPT
2 January 2026Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available
Court Case✓ Official

Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario

Lawyer used Grok in proceedings before the Ontario Law Society Tribunal. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's factum contained numerous non-existent and misleading case authorities generated by AI; Tribunal compiled a 15‑page chart identifying them and found no reliable authority in the materials.

Court: Ontario Law Society TribunalParty: LawyerTool: Grok
30 December 2025Judicial & Law EnforcementGenerative AILiability & Accountability
↗ Link available