Refugee claimants strike out after Federal Court says their legal claim is AI fakery - National Post

“Citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the Court,” the Federal Court judge wrote in his judgment. Photo by Hyungcheol Park/Postmedia/FileArticle contentA claim for refugee protection in Canada by a family of three has been rejected because their appeal was apparently generated by artificial intelligence tools and riddled with fake cases and false legal arguments.

The Federal Court issued a sharp rebuke of a court filing that challenges an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decision that refused asylum to the trio, with Justice Roger Lafrenière saying the appeal is riddled with nonsense and calling it “an abusive document.”

A lawyer representing the failed refugee claimants had requested the court accept the late filing of its documentation in their appeal. The IRB had previously found the asylum claim “manifestly unfounded.”

Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Lafrenière said the mistake over the filing date might have been excused until he saw the arguments relied on “fictitious citations” and “wholly inaccurate references to legal precedents.”

Lafrenière said the lawyer’s arguments cited case law from five prior Federal Court cases. The “cases,” however, cannot be found at the citations provided, nor do the citations to real cases make the argument the filing claims.

“The Applicants’ Memorandum of Argument is replete with inaccurate and, dare one say, misleading arguments,” Lafrenière wrote in a decision released Monday. In some of the cases, the precedent cited says the opposite of what the filing claims.

For example, the document cites two cases in support of an argument over judicial discretion. “However, nothing of the sort is stated in either of the two cases,” wrote Lafrenière. The document also gives one citation as being found in paragraphs 28–33 of a judgment that has only 10 paragraphs, and it is on an irrelevant subject.

“Citing fake cases in court filings is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the Court,” Lafrenière wrote in his judgment. “In addition, making misleading arguments to the Court violates professional ethics and counsel’s fundamental legal duty of candor.”