⚡ CASE DIGEST
Ko v. Li — Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2025 ONSC 2766 & 2965
A Toronto family law lawyer filed a factum containing AI-generated fake case citations. The court issued a contempt show cause order — the first in Ontario history arising from AI hallucinations. The contempt was dismissed after the lawyer apologised and pledged CPD training, but she was barred from billing her client for the fabricated research.
Category: Hallucinations & Sanctions | Jurisdiction: Canada (Ontario) | Read time: 6 min
① Case at a Glance
| Full Citation | Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766; Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965 |
| Court | Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Family Division) |
| Date | April–May 2025 |
| Category | Hallucinations & Sanctions |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Ontario) |
| AI Tool Used | AI-powered legal research tool |
| Source | CanLII (search Ko v. Li 2025 ONSC) |
② Background
Ko v. Li arose from a family law dispute in which Hanna Ko sought to invalidate a 2020 divorce order, pursue equalization of net family property, obtain support, and remove an estate trustee following the death of Xiang Guo Li. Ko’s lawyer filed a factum containing references to case authorities in support of a motion. When opposing counsel attempted to locate the cited authorities, several could not be found on any caselaw publication service — not CanLII, not Westlaw Canada. The lawyer admitted she had used an AI-powered legal research tool and had failed to verify the cases before filing.
③ The AI Issue
Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure require a lawyer to certify in every factum that they are “satisfied about the authenticity of every authority cited.” Filing AI hallucinations violates this certification directly. The court had to decide: does this constitute contempt — and what are the appropriate consequences?
④ What the Court Decided
- Show cause order for contempt issued — the first in Ontario arising from AI hallucinations [contempt of court, Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure].
- Contempt proceeding dismissed after unconditional apology and proposed remedial steps.
- Conditions of dismissal: CPD courses on competent AI use in legal practice.
- Lawyer ordered not to bill her client for the research, factum-drafting, and court attendance related to the AI-generated citations.
- Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct identified as the primary regulatory framework governing AI use by Ontario lawyers.
⑤ Key Quote
“Counsel’s failure to verify the AI-generated authorities before filing and arguing from them is a serious breach of her duties to this Court and to her client.”
— Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766
⑥ The India Angle
Ko v. Li is directly instructive for Indian advocates: courts in common law jurisdictions will initiate contempt proceedings — not merely impose costs — for AI-generated fake citations. Submitting fabricated citations in India could amount to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — an act that “scandalises” the court or “interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings.” Rule 22 of the BCI Standards prohibits an advocate from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to the court. Filing a factum with fabricated citations raises serious competence questions under Rule 14 and Rule 22. If you discover after filing that a citation does not exist — immediately inform the court, opposing counsel, and your client.
⑦ Quick Takeaways
- Canadian courts issue contempt orders for AI hallucinations — not just costs orders.
- Prompt apology and genuine remediation can save a lawyer from contempt being formally recorded.
- If AI-generated research is worthless, the client must not pay for it — Ko v. Li confirms this.