Naming a new wrong

A person uses AI in a proceeding. The court answers, or does not.

Every Canadian decision we could find in which a participant used generative AI in the conduct of a proceeding, or was said to have: 270 in scope, read in full and coded on the decision's own words. The corpus is built to be read the way a study of deviance is written — an act, someone who names it, an account offered in reply, and a sanction that in many cases never comes. Each code carries the sentence in the decision that admits it, so nothing here rests on a summary.