Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was 9232-6271 Québec inc. (Camping Ste-Justine) on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

9232-6271 Québec inc. (Camping Ste-Justine)

Court
Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2026-06-09
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
The objection was sustained and the AI-generated memorandum was excluded; the bingo licence application was rejected on independent eligibility grounds.
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | The AI-generated memorandum contained inaccuracies and errors in the interpretation of legal concepts; the Tribunal found the document unreliable as a whole and excluded it, but did not identify the specific erroneous passages.

Details

The applicant’s representative admitted that the memorandum submitted to the Tribunal had been generated using generative AI, although she had located and submitted the three cited Tribunal decisions herself. The Contentieux identified inaccuracies in the document’s interpretation of legal concepts. The Tribunal held that the errors undermined the reliability of the entire memorandum, sustained the objection, and refused to consider it. The three cited decisions were independently verified and were not excluded. The licence application was ultimately rejected because the applicant was a for-profit corporation and had not established that it was a charitable organization.

Sanction teardown · Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec, Canada · 2026-06-09

9232-6271 Québec inc. (Camping Ste-Justine)

What happened

In Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux du Québec, Canada, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Misrepresented (Doctrinal Work)
    The AI-generated memorandum contained inaccuracies and errors in the interpretation of legal concepts; the Tribunal found the document unreliable as a whole and excluded it, but did not identify the specific erroneous passages.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

The objection was sustained and the AI-generated memorandum was excluded; the bingo licence application was rejected on independent eligibility grounds.

Additional detail

The applicant’s representative admitted that the memorandum submitted to the Tribunal had been generated using generative AI, although she had located and submitted the three cited Tribunal decisions herself. The Contentieux identified inaccuracies in the document’s interpretation of legal concepts. The Tribunal held that the errors undermined the reliability of the entire memorandum, sustained the objection, and refused to consider it. The three cited decisions were independently verified and were not excluded. The licence application was ultimately rejected because the applicant was a for-profit corporation and had not established that it was a charitable organization.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3264/9232-6271-Quebec-inc.-Camping-Ste-Justine-2026-QCRACJ-230.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3264/9232-6271-Quebec-inc.-Camping-Ste-Justine-2026-QCRACJ-230.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template