With the increasing use of AI, not just by lawyers for their own submissions but also, and perhaps more problematically, by self-represented parties for their filings, there is an increasing obligation for lawyers to review not just their own but also their opponent’s documents for accuracy. This point was recently noted in Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62.
In Arbuckle, the self-represented Appellant failed to follow several civil procedure rules. Of note, he filed an appeal book that contained errors. The transcripts he filed included a certification from a court reporter. Respondents’ counsel noticed discrepancies in the record and questioned the work of the transcriber. It was only when the named transcriber denied doing the transcript that the Appellant admitted that he did not use the court transcriber but rather used AI to prepare the appeal book, including the transcript, and the AI pulled the certification from an earlier transcript in the matter.
On the failure of the Appellant to follow the rules and, in particular, the issues with the transcript, the Court stated:
[39] All appellants, those represented by counsel and those who are self-represented, must follow the Rules governing their appeals. The Rules exist to support and protect the appeal process. There are instances where non-compliance can be corrected and remedial orders an effective outcome. But Mr. Arbuckle’s non-compliance was not apparent like a lone missed deadline or a missing document. It was not a missed step or an insufficiency. It was non-compliance well disguised as compliance.
[40] Mr. Arbuckle was aware he had not complied with the Rules but carried on. I find his rationale for doing so immaterial. But for diligent counsel, it could have resulted in an appeal proceeding on an inaccurate record. I conclude the only disposition consistent with the interests of justice is to end an appeal fundamentally tainted by the appellant’s conduct. I find the nature of Mr. Arbuckle’s misconduct attracts substantially more weight in the balancing exercise than any other factor in the circumstances of this case.
In the past we have commented on the proposition that in the AI world it is important for counsel to confirm the accuracy of not only their own materials but also of their opponents. This decision supports that proposition. And the proposition that any misrepresentations to the Court will have consequences. As they should.
So, back to our earlier admonition about the use of AI, be careful.