Verify and Disclose AI Use – Requirements from the Federal Court

As lawyers increasingly use AI in their practice, we see more cases where courts deal with legal submissions involving AI hallucinations. This case deals with the issue of AI hallucinations and the failure to advise the court of the use of AI.

In Wael Mostafa Aly Hussein et al. v. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (2025 FC 1060), the Federal Court of Canada scrutinized the undeclared use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in legal submissions made by Applicants' counsel in a motion to admit new evidence and request for an extension of time to file the Applicant Record.

After the Court could not locate a few authorities referenced in the Applicants’ materials, it issued several Directions requiring a Book of Authorities. It was only after the last Direction was issued that Applicants’ counsel advised of his reliance on Visto.ai, an AI legal research tool designed specifically for Canadian immigration and refugee law practitioners. Counsel also advised that he did not independently verify the citations provided in his submissions. The Court found that the AI tool not only hallucinated two non-existent cases but it also hallucinated the proper test for the admission on judicial review of evidence not before the decision-maker and cited, as authority, a case which had no bearing on the issue at all.

Associate Judge Catherine Moore stated, “The use of generative artificial intelligence is increasingly common and a perfectly valid tool for counsel to use; however, in this Court, its use must be declared and as a matter of both practice, good sense and professionalism, its output must be verified by a human. The Court cannot be expected to spend time hunting for cases which do not exist or considering erroneous propositions of law.”

She found that not disclosing the use of artificial intelligence until after multiple Directions from the Court “amounts to an attempt to mislead the Court and to conceal the reliance by describing the hallucinated authorities as “mis-cited” Had the initial request for a Book of Authorities resulted in the explanation in the last letter, I may have been more sympathetic. As matters stand, I am concerned that counsel does not recognize the seriousness of the issue.”

The Court found that the use of AI was not only undeclared but concealed from the Court, which combined with counsel’s failure to verify the results of the AI tool amounts to special reason warranting an award of costs on the motion. Further, Judge Moore found that “consideration should be given as to whether it would be appropriate to direct Applicants’ counsel to pay any costs awarded on the motion personally. Applicants’ counsel will be afforded an opportunity to be heard on this specific issue.”

Recent rulings have made it clear - courts not only require counsel to validate the outcomes produced by artificial intelligence tools but also demand transparency regarding their use, with penalties for non-compliance.