AI failures · Fabricated content

Reddy v Saroya: Alberta Court of Appeal holds lead counsel responsible for contractor's AI-fabricated citations

Verified Checked against its sources on October 16, 2026 4 sources quoted

Where it happened: Canada
Organization: Nimmons Law Office (counsel for the appellant); Court of Appeal of Alberta
Date: 2025-09-26 (2025 ABCA 322); costs ruling 2026-01-22 (2026 ABCA 20)
Function: Legal
Where it happened: Legal research; appellate factum drafting
System: Large language model used by a third-party contractor (unspecified)
Technology: Generative AI
Type of failure: Fabricated content
Caught by: The opposing party

Summary

In a civil-contempt appeal, the appellant's factum, drafted by a third-party contractor, cited cases that did not exist. Respondent's counsel could not find seven of the cited cases and raised a likely AI problem. The lawyer said his firm bans generative AI and that the contractor had assured him none was used. In its September 26, 2025, decision (2025 ABCA 322) the Court of Appeal of Alberta held that the lawyer whose name is on a filing bears ultimate responsibility for it, even when a contractor drafted it, and invited costs submissions. In January 2026 (2026 ABCA 20) the court ordered the appellant's lead counsel to pay $17,550 plus GST in costs personally.

Consequence

Costs of $17,550 plus GST ordered payable by the appellant's lead counsel personally (2026 ABCA 20, January 22, 2026)

Who caught it The opposing partyFound outside the organization

Analysis

What could have been done

Oversight of suppliers' AI use

Suppliers' use of AI is disclosed, contracted for and checked.

The firm banned generative AI internally, but the factum was drafted by a third-party contractor, and the firm relied on the contractor's assurance that no AI was used; the factum cited cases that did not exist.

A review that can actually catch the error

The reviewer has the time, information and expertise to catch the error, not only to sign off.

The contractor delivered the factum late, leaving the firm limited time to verify each cited case before the filing deadline, and the factum carried no hyperlinks or copies of the cases relied on.

What would likely have prevented it

Do not rely on an internal AI ban or a contractor's assurance alone: contract for disclosure of any AI use in outsourced drafting and require each draft to arrive with a copy of, or link to, every authority it cites.
Set delivery dates for contracted drafting that leave time to verify every citation before the filing deadline, and treat an unfinished citation check as a reason not to file.

What would likely have caught it earlier

Check every case cited in contractor work against an authoritative database before the responsible lawyer signs; the opposing party could not find seven of them, so a full check by the firm would likely have found them first.

Key dates

September 26, 2025Event
October 16, 2026Checked against sources
October 18, 2026Checked against sources
October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: October 16, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

The issue was first identified by the respondent's counsel, who noted in their initial factum that the appellant's submissions "did not include hyperlinks or copies of the cases relied on, and that seven of the cases cited by the appellant could not be found

Supports: detection by opposing counsel; seven non-existent cases

The Alberta Court of Appeal Weighs in on the use of AI in Court Submissions ABlawg (University of Calgary Faculty of Law) Reporting or analysis
The lawyer, Christopher Souster of Nimmons Law Office, told the appellate court that the contractor he hired to draft the factum also submitted his work late, leaving the firm limited time to properly verify each cited case before a filing deadline.

Supports: counsel's name and firm; contractor drafted the factum

ABCA says lawyer who banned firm from using AI tools responsible for contractor's AI hallucinations Canadian Lawyer Reporting or analysis
On September 26, 2025, the Court of Appeal of Alberta (ABCA) released its first decision addressing the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to create references to non-existent case law or statutes

Supports: decision date

Reality Check: Alberta Court Weighs Costs Award Against Counsel For AI-Generated Case Law Hallucinations Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (via Mondaq) Reporting or analysis
The total amount of $17,550.00 plus GST shall be payable by appellant's lead counsel personally.

Supports: personal costs award against lead counsel

Reddy v Saroya, 2026 ABCA 20, Memorandum of Judgment Regarding Costs Court of Appeal of Alberta (copy hosted by Canadian Lawyer) Primary source

Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Reddy v Saroya: Alberta Court of Appeal holds lead counsel responsible for contractor's AI-fabricated citations”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/fail-009/.

Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.

Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.