In 1182573 B.C. Ltd. v Gerber, 2026 BCCA 399, the BC Court of Appeal warned of the risks of using artificial intelligence (“AI”) to prepare court materials without proper review. The Court emphasized that AI can do more harm than good when used without human judgement.
The Case
The case arose from a dispute over the sale of waterfront property. Two companies sought to appeal court orders requiring them to set aside $20,000 for potential legal costs and shorten lengthy requests for the defendants to admit facts (at para. 3). The Court refused permission to appeal. The companies’ representative, who did not have legal counsel, acknowledged using AI to prepare his submissions, prompting the Court to address the growing use of AI in litigation (at paras. 53, 79).
The Court’s Warning on AI
The Court identified several risks associated with using AI to prepare legal materials, including its tendency to invent cases or quotations, misstate the law, and generate lengthy submissions containing irrelevant legal arguments (at paras. 81-89). The Court specifically cautioned:
“It is the opposite of persuasive advocacy to cite and excerpt long lists of irrelevant case authorities. It makes submissions incoherent.” (at para. 87)
The Court emphasized that litigants remain responsible for checking the accuracy and relevance of all materials they submit, regardless of whether AI assisted in preparing them (at paras. 82, 84).
Beyond concerns about accuracy, the Court also raised concerns about the increasingly aggressive tone of some court materials and correspondence. Justice Griffin questioned whether reliance on AI may be contributing to a loss of the human judgement needed to communicate politely, honestly, and ethically. The Court observed:
“AI has no moral code: no sense of ethics or honesty.” (at para. 90)
The Court warned that inappropriate or aggressive conduct during litigation can worsen disputes, increase legal expenses, and damage a party’s credibility. Such conduct may also contribute to negative findings against a party and significant orders requiring them to pay the opposing party’s legal costs (at para. 90).
Justice Griffin emphasized that parties using AI must carefully review the materials it generates, remove unnecessary content, and exercise their own judgement to ensure that the tone remains appropriate (at para. 91). The Court further explained:
“Understanding the law and having the judgment to know how to advance a case is complicated. That is why lawyers require years of training and experience and are professionally regulated. AI does not replace the expertise and value of trained lawyers.” (at para. 92)
Although the Court’s comments focused largely on individuals representing themselves, it recognized that lawyers also use AI and face similar risks. Justice Griffin noted that lawyers must apply their professional training and judgement to AI generated materials to guard against these risks (at para. 93).
Implications for Future Litigation
The Court warned that relying on AI without proper oversight can lead to claims and applications that lack merit, increase costs for opposing parties, and place unnecessary demands on limited court resources (at paras. 94-96). The Court concluded:
“Simply put, a litigant who decides to use AI to help them in their case needs to be cautious, and to be aware that it might not help but rather hinder and lead them astray.” (at para. 97)
The decision serves as a reminder that AI can be a useful tool in litigation, but its output must be carefully reviewed. Parties who rely on inaccurate or irrelevant AI generated materials risk weakening their cases or being subject to costs awards.