In barely three years, artificial intelligence tools have become ubiquitous before Quebec courts. While the potential benefits of this revolution cannot be denied, it nevertheless carries the risk that AI-generated inaccuracies, errors or hallucinations may be submitted to courts, to the detriment of the reliability and integrity of the justice system. Self-represented litigants, who often lack the legal knowledge required to question the quality of AI output, are the most likely to fall into this kind of misuse.

Mindful of this danger, the courts have emphasized the importance of three pillars that should guide the use of AI before them: prudence, verification and responsibility, which ultimately rests with litigants. Yet, while the first two principles are not controversial, the case law reviewed in this blog shows that courts struggle to apply the principle of responsibility uniformly and, as a result, to effectively deter the improper use of AI by self-represented litigants[1].

The Principles: Prudence, Verification and Responsibility

The Quebec Court of Appeal[2], the Superior Court[3] and the Court of Quebec[4] have each published notices setting out the same cardinal principles governing the use of AI before them:

1. Prudence – a general duty of prudence applies when litigants use AI.
2. Verification – litigants have a duty to verify the results produced by AI.
3. Responsibility – if litigants fail to comply with the first two principles and submit erroneous information or citations to the courts, they are responsible. The Court of Appeal reminds litigants that “the litigant is responsible for the accuracy of their written and oral submissions.”

Although these principles are stated in relatively simple terms, the implementation of the principle of responsibility raises serious practical difficulties.

The Practice: Uneven Implementation of the Principle of Responsibility

An analysis of the 24 decisions referring to improper uses of AI by self-represented litigants (Appendix) shows that Quebec courts have struggled to adopt a uniform approach to holding offending litigants accountable. A myriad of different sanctions appear to find favour with Quebec courts.

Warnings. In the overwhelming majority of the decisions reviewed, courts describe the improper use of AI made before them without specifically sanctioning it. They apparently consider that identifying the fault and warning the litigant is a sufficient sanction.

For example, in Droit de la famille – 251792[5], the Superior Court notes that the defendant submitted references to non-existent decisions and distorted the content of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, the Court refused to order the monetary sanction sought and held that a simple warning was sufficient.

Monetary Sanctions. To date, only five decisions[6] have imposed a monetary sanction on self-represented litigants under article 342 CCP because of their improper use of AI.

The awards range from $5,000 to $500, with no clear correlation between the number of false citations or hallucinations and the amount awarded.

Potential Sanctions. Beyond warnings and monetary sanctions, some courts have referred to other potential sanctions, without applying them:

• the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court state that an improper use of AI could cast doubt on whether an application is truly in the interests of justice[7], a consideration that may be fatal to various proceedings;
• the Superior Court indicates that improper use of AI could give rise to contempt of court proceedings[8]; and
• the Superior Court recalls that abusive use of AI could lead to a declaration of abuse of process[9].

Probative Value. Beyond sanctions strictly speaking, courts remind litigants that improper use of AI will undermine the credibility of everything advanced by the offending party[10]. In extreme cases, this may lead courts to disregard entirely certain documents and submissions produced by the offending party using AI[11].

Conclusion: an Insufficiently Deterrent Patchwork of Sanctions

As the case law currently stands, a self-represented litigant who misuses AI before the courts is therefore far from certain to be sanctioned and, if sanctioned, under what form.

The persistence of improper uses of AI before the courts unfortunately suggests that, because of this uncertainty, the sanctions do not have the intended deterrent effect. They are insufficient to hold self-represented litigants accountable and to encourage them to comply with the principles of prudence and verification when they use AI.

Accordingly, if AI is to become an access-to-justice tool as the legal community hopes, without undermining the integrity and reliability of the system or wasting its already scarce resources, a uniform and genuinely deterrent approach will have to emerge.

Yet the analysis of the above decisions shows that this lack of uniformity stems from the fact that the issue engages a range of judicial policy considerations: access to justice, the integrity and reliability of the justice system, and the preservation of judicial and party resources. It is therefore unsurprising that, left to their own devices, courts arrive at such different sanctions depending on the weight they give to each of these considerations.

It appears likely that intervention by higher courts or the legislature, which are better positioned to balance these judicial policy considerations, will be necessary to standardize the sanctions applicable to self-represented litigants who misuse AI, in order to adequately protect the justice system.

[1] This blog does not address the the misuse of AI by lawyers, which involves separate ethics questions

[2] Court of Appeal of Quebec, Notice Respecting the Use of Artificial Intelligence Before the Court of Appeal of Quebec, August 8, 2024

[3] Superior Court of Quebec, Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models, October 24, 2023

[4] Court of Quebec, Notice to the Legal Community and the Public, January 26, 2024

[5] 2025 QCCS 4505, par. 30 à 34; voir également Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de L’Autre Maison, 2025 CanLII 120680 (QC SAT), par. 125 à 140

[6] Makongo c. Montpetit, 2026 QCCQ 746; Droit de la famille — 252196, 2025 QCCS 5260 ; Kalala c. Coopérative d’habitation La Fraternité Micheloise, 2025 QCCS 4866 ; Bourse de Immobilier Multilogements inc. c. Lanthier, 2025 QCCS 4135 ; Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521

[7] Azar c. Université de Montréal, 2025 QCCA 1442, par. 7; Alamleh c. R., 2026 QCCS 416, par. 14

[8] Alamleh c. R., 2026 QCCS 416, par. 12

[9] Droit de la famille – 26148, 2026 QCCS 666, par. 36 à 43 ; Dans le même sens, voir 9525-1260 Quebec inc. c. Donato, 2026 QCCS 1142, par. 10

[10] Alamleh c. R., 2026 QCCS 416, par. 5 à 15; BS v. Minister responsible for Social Solidarity and Community Action, 2025 QCTAQ 11148; J T v. Quebec (Société de l’assurance automobile), 2026 QCTAQ 05206, par. 27 et 28

[11] Régie du bâtiment du Québec c. 9308-2469 Québec inc. (Éco résidentiel), 2025 QCRBQ 86, par. 159 à 170

APPENDIX

1. Azar Université de Montréal, 2025 QCCA 1442
2. Association des ressources intermédiaires d’hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) Santé Québec – Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360
3. Blinds to Go Inc. Blachley, 2025 QCCS 3190
4. Protection de la jeunesse – 262332, 2026 QCCS 1966
5. Droit de la famille — 26184, 2026 QCCS 666
6. Alamleh R., 2026 QCCS 416
7. Droit de la famille — 252196, 2025 QCCS 5260
8. Kalala Coopérative d’habitation La Fraternité Micheloise, 2025 QCCS 4866
9. Specter Aviation Limited Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521
10. Droit de la famille – 251792, 2025 QCCS 4505
11. Bourse de Immobilier Multilogements inc. Lanthier, 2025 QCCS 4135
12. Lessard Longuepee, 2025 QCCQ 8285
13. Makongo Montpetit, 2026 QCCQ 746
14. JT Quebec (Société de l’assurance automobile), 2026 QCTAQ 05206
15. BS Minister responsible for Social Solidarity and Community Action, 2025 QCTAQ 11148
16. Dulac Ville de Gatineau, 2025 QCTAQ 10177
17. St-Roch Andritz Hydro Canada inc., 2025 QCTAT 5136
18. Bégin-Létourneau Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d’Hydro-Québec, section locale 4250, SCFP-FTQ, 2025 QCTAT 5208
19. Thabize Immobilière Montérégienne IMR Inc., 2026 QCTAL 7284
20. Lozano González Roberge, 2025 QCTAL 15786
21. Rajabi Lassalle, 2024 QCTAL 35477
22. Régie du bâtiment du Québec 9308-2469 Québec inc. (Éco résidentiel), 2025 QCRBQ 86
23. Opticiens d’ordonnances (Ordre professionnel des) Chartrand, 2026 QCCDOOD 4
24. Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de L’Autre Maison – CSN Centre L’Autre Maison inc., 2025 CanLII 120680 (QC SAT)