Federal Court Cites Ontario Case Re: AI Hallucinations
In a previous blog post, I described a recent case in Ontario Superior Court of Justice that got sidetracked by AI hallucinations.[1] The case, Ko v Li,[2] was a new data point for anyone hoping to map out the possible consequences of accidentally submitting an AI hallucination to the Courts.
Now, we have another data point.
Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v Choi[3]
LRC v Choi was a proceeding before the Federal Court, to decide whether a Motion Record should be removed from the court file.[4] The respondent (Choi) was self-represented, and he used AI to draft the Motion Record in question.[5] The applicant claimed that the Motion Record was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.[6] Notably, one of the cases the respondent relied on in the Motion Record was apparently a hallucination.[7]
The Court seems to think this case was more egregious than the circumstances in Ko v Li.[8] For one, the respondent in LRC v Cho has a history of (mis)using AI. The respondent was also a party in a proceeding before an administrative tribunal, where almost all of the 30+ references in his reply submissions were AI hallucinations.[9] Additionally, the respondent in LRC v Cho did not take full responsibility, unlike the party at fault in Ko v Li. Rather, the respondent in LRC v Cho admitted to using AI for drafting and research but denied that the citation error was a hallucination. The court did not accept the respondent’s alternate explanation for how the faulty citation was included.[10] Finally, LRC v Cho took place in the federal court, where practice directions require all parties to include a written declaration if they use AI to generate materials for litigation.[11] The respondent did not submit a declaration, even when reminded by the Court to do so.[12]
The Court gave what they considered a “modest” sanction under the circumstances.[13] The respondent requested leniency due to his self-represented status and mental health issues. However, the Court decided to remove the respondent’s Motion Record to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, although the applicant did not request solicitor-client costs, the Court still awarded the applicants $500 in costs.[14] The Court noted that “A party who assists the Court in ensuring the orderly administration of justice should not have to suffer costs.”[15]
AI Hallucination take-aways
Even with the greater “latitude” Courts afford self-represented litigants, AI hallucinations can get a motion thrown out and can result in a cost order.
—
[1] Growing Professional Obligations Surrounding AI Hallucinations – It’s time to talk about AI, but do you know what you’re talking about? | WEL Partners Blog
[2] Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kbzwn>.
[3] Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kd4w2>
[4]Ibid
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid
[9]Ibid
[10]Ibid.
[11] CJ P.S. Crampton, May 7, 2024, NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND THE PROFESSION
[12]Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233 (CanLII)
[13]Ibid.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid.
Menu
Written by: Jaclyn Holdsworth
Posted on: July 29, 2025
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
In a previous blog post, I described a recent case in Ontario Superior Court of Justice that got sidetracked by AI hallucinations.[1] The case, Ko v Li,[2] was a new data point for anyone hoping to map out the possible consequences of accidentally submitting an AI hallucination to the Courts.
Now, we have another data point.
Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v Choi[3]
LRC v Choi was a proceeding before the Federal Court, to decide whether a Motion Record should be removed from the court file.[4] The respondent (Choi) was self-represented, and he used AI to draft the Motion Record in question.[5] The applicant claimed that the Motion Record was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.[6] Notably, one of the cases the respondent relied on in the Motion Record was apparently a hallucination.[7]
The Court seems to think this case was more egregious than the circumstances in Ko v Li.[8] For one, the respondent in LRC v Cho has a history of (mis)using AI. The respondent was also a party in a proceeding before an administrative tribunal, where almost all of the 30+ references in his reply submissions were AI hallucinations.[9] Additionally, the respondent in LRC v Cho did not take full responsibility, unlike the party at fault in Ko v Li. Rather, the respondent in LRC v Cho admitted to using AI for drafting and research but denied that the citation error was a hallucination. The court did not accept the respondent’s alternate explanation for how the faulty citation was included.[10] Finally, LRC v Cho took place in the federal court, where practice directions require all parties to include a written declaration if they use AI to generate materials for litigation.[11] The respondent did not submit a declaration, even when reminded by the Court to do so.[12]
The Court gave what they considered a “modest” sanction under the circumstances.[13] The respondent requested leniency due to his self-represented status and mental health issues. However, the Court decided to remove the respondent’s Motion Record to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, although the applicant did not request solicitor-client costs, the Court still awarded the applicants $500 in costs.[14] The Court noted that “A party who assists the Court in ensuring the orderly administration of justice should not have to suffer costs.”[15]
AI Hallucination take-aways
Even with the greater “latitude” Courts afford self-represented litigants, AI hallucinations can get a motion thrown out and can result in a cost order.
—
[1] Growing Professional Obligations Surrounding AI Hallucinations – It’s time to talk about AI, but do you know what you’re talking about? | WEL Partners Blog
[2] Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kbzwn>.
[3] Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kd4w2>
[4]Ibid
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid
[9]Ibid
[10]Ibid.
[11] CJ P.S. Crampton, May 7, 2024, NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND THE PROFESSION
[12]Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233 (CanLII)
[13]Ibid.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid.
Author
View all posts