What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | AI‑prepared "demande de contestation" cites article 159 of the Loi sur la justice administrative in support of the filing, but that provision concerns appeals in different subject‑matter and is inapplicable here. || False Quotes: Case Law | AI text asserts that a 2012 QCCA decision establishes that family allowances 'belong to the child' and are an autonomous right, but the referenced 2012 QCCA 1935 (Lac‑Sergent (Ville de) c. Lapointe) concerns municipal snowmobile regulation and not family allowances; Tribunal treated this as an AI misattribution and disregarded the authority. || Misrepresented: Other | AI conflated different beneficiary concepts (pension alimentaire, allocation familiale, Allocation famille), producing doctrinally incorrect assertions about ownership and entitlement.

Sanction teardown · QC TAQ, Canada · 2026-06-25

K… A… c. Retraite Québec

What happened

In QC TAQ, 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 (Legal Norm)

AI‑prepared "demande de contestation" cites article 159 of the Loi sur la justice administrative in support of the filing, but that provision concerns appeals in different subject‑matter and is inapplicable here.
False Quotes (Case Law)

AI text asserts that a 2012 QCCA decision establishes that family allowances 'belong to the child' and are an autonomous right, but the referenced 2012 QCCA 1935 (Lac‑Sergent (Ville de) c. Lapointe) concerns municipal snowmobile regulation and not family allowances; Tribunal treated this as an AI misattribution and disregarded the authority.
Misrepresented (Other)

AI conflated different beneficiary concepts (pension alimentaire, allocation familiale, Allocation famille), producing doctrinally incorrect assertions about ownership and entitlement.

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

Not specified in source record.

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/2596/KA-v.-Retraite-Quebec-2026-CanLII-68242-QC-TAQ.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

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 checker Back 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 — $49 Sanctions-motion template