- within Compliance and Wealth Management topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Utilities industries
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually becoming present in all sectors, including law. Citizens and businesses, as well as lawyers, see it as a valuable resource. However, this technology can raise issues of reliability and liability. On October 1, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec rendered a landmark decision in Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade,1 sanctioning for the first time the inappropriate use of AI in the context of litigation.
Warnings already issued
Prior to this decision, no Quebec court had yet imposed sanctions for the inappropriate use of AI. However, in 2023, the Superior Court of Quebec had issued a notice urging litigators to exercise caution.2 In the case of Specter Aviation, the Court noted that other Canadian jurisdictions had already dealt with similar situations. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, in Zhang v. Chen,3 had concluded that citing decisions invented by ChatGPT constituted an abuse of process that compromised the integrity of the justice system. Similarly, in Lloyd's Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi,4 the Federal Court dismissed proceedings tainted by fictitious references produced by an AI tool.
Superior Court of Quebec decision
In the case of Specter Aviation, the defendant, Mr. Laprade, represented himself in challenging an application for homologation of an arbitral award. The case was a part of a long and complex dispute involving an aircraft. To prepare his defense, the defendant used various means, including AI.5 On several occasions, he included false citations, decisions, and references in his proceedings, as well as conclusions that did not match the content cited.6
Based on section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec, the Court found that this behaviour constituted a substantial breach of conduct of proceedings, thus justifying a $5,000 penalty.7 This penalty arises from the fact that the defendant attempted to mislead the opposing party and the Court by producing fictitious excerpts of case law and other authorities fabricated by AI (commonly referred to as "hallucinations"). The Court specified that such conduct, whether intentional or merely negligent, constitutes a serious breach since, even if unrepresented, a litigant remains bound by the highest standards of rigour when filing proceedings before the Court.8
Thus, although access to justice is a fundamental right, it must be exercised in accordance with the rules of the judicial process. The Court reiterated that the use of AI cannot, under any circumstances, justify the submission of inaccurate or fabricated documents.9
Key takeaways
Beyond this specific case, this decision sets a precedent in Quebec case law regarding the use of AI. While the Court does not condemn the use of such technological tools per se, it reiterates the need for caution and human intervention at every stage.10
This decision thus provides a useful framework for consideration for any sector of activity incorporating AI. Indeed, it illustrates the due diligence and traceability requirements that businesses using AI must now adopt. It also confirms the importance for AI systems to be subjected to rigorous controls and human supervision (often referred to as "human in the loop"). The use of AI does not exempt a business from any liability with regard to its products and services.
In other words, any business that uses AI should put in place AI control mechanisms, specifically by implementing governance practices and internal policies (verification protocols and quality control, documentation, audits, etc.), and by including clauses, in its contracts or terms and conditions, relating to the use of AI, conditions of use, and limitations of liability.
In summary, although AI is a remarkable breakthrough in terms of efficiency and assistance, its current use nonetheless requires supervision.
Footnotes
1. Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521
2. Notice to the legal community and the public of the Superior Court of Quebec, dated October 24, 2023 (Avis_a_la_communaute_juridique-Utilisation_intelligence_artificielle_FR.pdf) (available in French only)
3. Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285
4. Lloyd's Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233
5. Specter Aviation Limited v. Laprade, supra note 1, para. 35 ("Specter Aviation")
6. Id., para. 53
7. Id., paras. 55; 60
8. Id., para. 57
9. Id., para. 43
10. Id., para. 45
Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
