Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322
Improper use of AI in Court Submissions
Harris v Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 532
Judicial Review of Umpire’s decision under Insurance Act
Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322
In Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322, appellate counsel used a form of AI known as large language model in written submissions before the Court of Appeal, which generated references to cases that do not exist. Appellate counsel submitted that he had contracted a third party to draft the appellate factum, that he was “ill, very busy, and it was holiday season when the factum was due, which contributed to him failing to properly review the original factum and recognize the issue with several cited cases.” The Court of Appeal emphasized the Law Society’s Code of Conduct, which requires legal services to be provided to the standard of a competent lawyer as well as the Notices from the Courts dated October 6, 2023 and titled Ensuring the Integrity of Court Submissions When Using Large Language Models. That notice required litigants to use caution when using AI. The Court directed that if third parties are engaged to assist in drafting written material, the lawyer named in the document bears the ultimate responsibility for the contents, and ensuring compliance with the Court direction. The Court directed that parties should not expect leniency where they have failed to adhere to these requirements and in most cases courts will consider striking submissions or imposing a costs award. A Court may also determine that a penalty be imposed, contempt proceedings initiated, or a referral to the Law Society. Appellate counsel suggested that a costs award against him personally was unnecessary, however, the Court of Appeal signalled that they were considering a costs award to be payable by counsel personally up to double the Column 5 Schedule C amount and the Court provided additional time to provide written submissions with respect to the proposed costs award.
Harris v Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 532
At issue was whether, under Section 519 of the Insurance Act, Umpires are required to choose between the positions of the parties in the event they cannot agree. The Court directed that Section 519(7) defines how the substantive dispute is to be adjudicated. Further, Umpires “can and should point the parties towards principled compromises that accord with the evidence where they perceive these as fair and reasonable settlements to the claim.” If an Umpire does not propose a compromise, or if neither party agrees to a compromise, the Umpire’s arbitral role is engaged. When performing this function, they are limited by the language of Section 519(7) to “choosing between the competing, steadfast positions of the insurer and insured”. What is not permitted is for the Umpire to impose a solution to which neither party agrees.