{"id":290971,"date":"2026-06-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290971"},"modified":"2026-06-09T14:54:55","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T12:54:55","slug":"no-delegation-of-judgment-quebec-court-annuls-award-tainted-by-ai-hallucinations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/05\/no-delegation-of-judgment-quebec-court-annuls-award-tainted-by-ai-hallucinations\/","title":{"rendered":"No Delegation of Judgment: Qu\u00e9bec Court Annuls Award Tainted by AI Hallucinations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-quebec-association-of-intermediate-housing-resources-v-integrated-university-health-and-social-services-centre-of-south-central-montreal-arret-de-la-cour-superieure-du-quebec-2026-qccs-1360-wednesday-22nd-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+QCCS+1360%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>ARIHQ v Sant\u00e9 Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> [2026] QCCS 1360<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Victor Dubreuille<\/strong>, Dispute Resolution Trainee at <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/clifford-chance\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Clifford Chance<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-d078d18f\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 22 April 2026, the Superior Court of Qu\u00e9bec issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-quebec-association-of-intermediate-housing-resources-v-integrated-university-health-and-social-services-centre-of-south-central-montreal-arret-de-la-cour-superieure-du-quebec-2026-qccs-1360-wednesday-22nd-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+QCCS+1360%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">landmark decision <\/a>in <em>ARIHQ v Sant\u00e9 Qu\u00e9bec <\/em>concerning the use of artificial intelligence in the drafting process of arbitral awards. Finding that the arbitrator had unduly delegated the exercise of his decision-making power by failing to verify the legal reasoning generated by artificial intelligence, the Court annulled the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case originated from a service agreement between the Centre de Sant\u00e9 Osman, operator of an intermediate housing resource (the &#8220;<strong>Intermediate Resource<\/strong>&#8220;), and the <em>Centre int\u00e9gr\u00e9 universitaire du Centre-Sud de l&#8217;\u00cele-de-Montr\u00e9al<\/em> (the &#8220;<strong>Establishment<\/strong>&#8220;). In this context, the Intermediate Resource provided accommodation for residents experiencing loss of autonomy who were referred by the Establishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This service was governed by the national agreement concluded on 7 June 2018 (the &#8220;<strong>National Agreement<\/strong>&#8220;) between the Minister of Health and Social Services and the <em>Association des ressources interm\u00e9diaires d&#8217;h\u00e9bergement du Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> (the &#8220;<strong>Association<\/strong>&#8220;), which serves as the representative body for intermediate housing resource operators. This agreement governed, <em>inter alia<\/em>, the remuneration terms applicable to accommodation services provided by member institutions of the Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the dispute resolution mechanism set out in the National Agreement, any dispute had first to be submitted to an attempt at amicable resolution. Failing to reach an agreement, the Association was required to send a notice of disagreement to the relevant establishment within ninety days following the emergence of the dispute, to which the establishment had to respond within thirty days. The Association then had sixty days from this response to submit the dispute to arbitration before a sole arbitrator chosen jointly by the parties from a list annexed to the National Agreement. The chosen arbitrator&nbsp; was then required to render their final award within ninety days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following a refusal of payment by the Establishment to the Intermediate Resource, a dispute arose between the parties in 2021. However, it was not until 1 August 2024, nearly three years later, that the Association sent a notice of disagreement to the Establishment. In its written response dated 28 August 2024, the Establishment argued that the notice was time-barred, as the contractual ninety-day period had expired several years prior. Despite this objection, the Association filed a request for arbitration on 13 September 2024, to which the Establishment raised a preliminary objection based on non-compliance with the deadlines set out in the dispute resolution clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The arbitrator rendered his award on 8 August 2025, upholding the Establishment&#8217;s preliminary objection and thereby terminating the arbitration proceedings. On 5 and 6 November 2025, the Association and the Intermediate Resource initiated proceedings before the Superior Court of Qu\u00e9bec seeking annulment of the award. The plaintiffs contended, on the one hand, that the award contravened public policy due to a violation of statutory limitation periods and, on the other hand, that it failed to comply with the arbitral procedure agreed upon by the parties, since the arbitrator delegated his decision\u2011making authority to artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In its 22 April 2026 judgment, the Superior Court of Qu\u00e9bec annulled the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitration procedure agreed upon by the parties had not been respected. It therefore ordered the parties to choose a new arbitrator within sixty days of the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, the Court dismissed the ground based on the award&#8217;s contrariety to public policy. The plaintiffs argued that the dispute resolution clause, by imposing a deadline for sending the notice of disagreement from the occurrence of the dispute, constituted a contractual modification of the statutory limitation period prohibited under Qu\u00e9bec law. However, the judge noted that this issue was covered by the principle of non-revision of the award on its merits and could not, standing alone, justify the annulment of the award. He then drew a distinction between limitation periods, governed by Article 2884 of the Qu\u00e9bec Civil code and forming part of public policy, and forfeiture periods as well as contractual notice requirements, which constitute mere conditions of admissibility of the claim without modifying the statutory limitation period. On this basis, clarified that, in any event, making the right of action conditional on a prior notice does not constitute &#8220;<em>a result whose integration into the Qu\u00e9bec legal system would be contrary to public policy&#8221; <\/em>(original in French; unofficial translation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, the Court addressed the impact of the arbitrator&#8217;s use of artificial intelligence on the arbitral procedure agreed upon by the parties. After stressing the importance of the arbitrator\u2019s appointment, particularly in light of the parties\u2019 legitimate expectations regarding the drafting of the award, the judge emphasised that an arbitrator may not delegate the exercise of their decision-making power. In applying this principle, the Court observed that several elements appearing in the award &#8211; notably doctrinal references, judicial decisions, and arbitral awards &#8211; were the result of hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence. Since these references were used to support the legal reasoning that led to the arbitrator&#8217;s decision, the judge considered that &#8220;<em>the Arbitrator&#8217;s authority was delegated, and <\/em>[that] <em>he abdicated his role of reviewing the outcome<\/em>&#8221; (unofficial translation). Consequently, the award was annulled for failure to comply with the arbitral procedure agreed upon by the parties, who had not intended for their dispute to be resolved by anyone other than the appointed arbitrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This landmark decision lays the framework for the use of artificial intelligence in the arbitral decision-making process in Qu\u00e9bec. In this regard, the Court clarified that its ruling should not be interpreted as implying &#8220;<em>that any award citing erroneous references or using artificial intelligence as a drafting tool should suffer the same fate&#8221; <\/em>(unofficial translation). Ultimately, the sanction of annulment remains limited to situations in which artificial intelligence was the source of the legal reasoning underlying the final decision, without that reasoning having been effectively verified by the arbitral tribunal. Overall, this decision sanctions the delegation of decision-making authority, in line with well-established case law affirming the personal nature of the function entrusted to the arbitrator, irrespective of the use of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Victor Dubreuille<\/strong> is a French Bar-qualified trainee lawyer specializing in international dispute resolution.&nbsp;He holds a dual&nbsp;Bachelor&#8217;s in Law&nbsp;(LL.B.) and Economics (BSc) along with a Master\u2019s in Global Business Law &amp; Governance, a transatlantic program offered by Columbia Law School, Sciences Po, and Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne designed to bridge common law and civil law traditions.&nbsp;His experience in international arbitration and litigation includes internships at A&amp;O Shearman in Paris and Clifford Chance in Luxembourg, as well as participation in the 32nd Willem C. Vis Moot in Vienna.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-d078d18f\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Au-del\u00e0 de l\u2019assistance \u00e0 la r\u00e9daction : la Cour sup\u00e9rieure du Qu\u00e9bec fixe les limites de l\u2019usage de l\u2019IA en arbitrage<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 22 avril 2026, la Cour sup\u00e9rieure du Qu\u00e9bec a rendu une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-quebec-association-of-intermediate-housing-resources-v-integrated-university-health-and-social-services-centre-of-south-central-montreal-arret-de-la-cour-superieure-du-quebec-2026-qccs-1360-wednesday-22nd-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+QCCS+1360%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">d\u00e9cision in\u00e9dite<\/a> dans l&#8217;affaire <em>ARIHQ c. Sant\u00e9 Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> portant sur l\u2019utilisation de l\u2019intelligence artificielle dans le processus de r\u00e9daction d\u2019une sentence arbitrale. Estimant que l\u2019arbitre avait ind\u00fbment d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9 l\u2019exercice de son pouvoir juridictionnel en omettant de v\u00e9rifier la validit\u00e9 du raisonnement retenu, la Cour a prononc\u00e9 l\u2019annulation de la sentence.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019affaire trouvait son origine dans une prestation de services fournie par le Centre de Sant\u00e9 Osman, exploitant d\u2019une ressource interm\u00e9diaire d\u2019h\u00e9bergement (la \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>Ressource interm\u00e9diaire<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), au b\u00e9n\u00e9fice du Centre int\u00e9gr\u00e9 universitaire du Centre-Sud de l\u2019\u00cele-de-Montr\u00e9al (l\u2019\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>\u00c9tablissement<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb). Dans le cadre de cette relation, la Ressource interm\u00e9diaire assurait l\u2019h\u00e9bergement d\u2019usagers en perte d\u2019autonomie n\u00e9cessitant une assistance quotidienne qui lui \u00e9taient confi\u00e9s par l\u2019\u00c9tablissement.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette prestation de services \u00e9tait r\u00e9gie par l\u2019entente nationale conclue le 7 juin 2018 (l\u2019\u00ab <strong>Entente nationale<\/strong> \u00bb) entre le ministre de la Sant\u00e9 et des Services Sociaux et l\u2019Association des ressources interm\u00e9diaires d\u2019h\u00e9bergement du Qu\u00e9bec (l\u2019\u00ab <strong>Association<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), organisme repr\u00e9sentatif des exploitants de ressources interm\u00e9diaires. Cet accord r\u00e9gissait, entre autres, les modalit\u00e9s de r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration applicables aux services d\u2019h\u00e9bergement fournis par les membres de l\u2019Association.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Selon le m\u00e9canisme de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends institu\u00e9 par l\u2019Entente nationale, tout litige devait faire l\u2019objet d\u2019une tentative pr\u00e9alable de r\u00e9solution amiable. \u00c0 d\u00e9faut d\u2019accord, l\u2019Association devait transmettre un avis de m\u00e9sentente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tablissement concern\u00e9 dans un d\u00e9lai de quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la naissance du diff\u00e9rend, auquel l\u2019\u00e9tablissement devait r\u00e9pondre dans les trente jours. L\u2019Association disposait ensuite de soixante jours \u00e0 compter de cette r\u00e9ponse pour soumettre le litige \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage devant un arbitre unique, choisi conjointement par les parties \u00e0 m\u00eame une liste annex\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019Entente nationale. Enfin, l\u2019arbitre devait rendre sa sentence finale dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant sa saisine.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u00c0 la suite d\u2019un refus de paiement oppos\u00e9 par l\u2019\u00c9tablissement \u00e0 la Ressource interm\u00e9diaire, un diff\u00e9rend est n\u00e9 entre les parties en 2021. Ce n\u2019est toutefois que le 1er ao\u00fbt 2024, soit pr\u00e8s de trois ans plus tard, que l\u2019Association a transmis un avis de m\u00e9sentente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9tablissement. Dans sa r\u00e9ponse \u00e9crite du 28 ao\u00fbt 2024, ce dernier a soutenu que l\u2019avis avait \u00e9t\u00e9 communiqu\u00e9 hors d\u00e9lai, d\u00e8s lors que la p\u00e9riode contractuelle de quatre-vingt-dix jours \u00e9tait expir\u00e9e depuis plusieurs ann\u00e9es. En d\u00e9pit de cette contestation, l\u2019Association a d\u00e9pos\u00e9 une demande d\u2019arbitrage le 13 septembre 2024, \u00e0 laquelle l\u2019\u00c9tablissement a oppos\u00e9 une objection pr\u00e9liminaire fond\u00e9e sur le non-respect des d\u00e9lais pr\u00e9vus par la clause de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Au terme d\u2019une audience tenue le 7 juillet 2025, l\u2019arbitre a rendu sa sentence le 8 ao\u00fbt 2025, faisant droit \u00e0 l\u2019objection pr\u00e9liminaire de l\u2019\u00c9tablissement et mettant fin \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale. Les 5 et 6 novembre 2025, l\u2019Association et la Ressource interm\u00e9diaire ont chacune introduit un recours en annulation contre la sentence rendue, lesquels ont \u00e9t\u00e9 joints le 11 d\u00e9cembre 2025. Les demanderesses invoquaient, d\u2019une part, la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de la sentence \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public en raison d\u2019une violation de l\u2019interdiction de modifier conventionnellement les d\u00e9lais de prescription l\u00e9gaux et, d\u2019autre part, le non-respect de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale en raison de la d\u00e9l\u00e9gation par l\u2019arbitre de son pouvoir d\u00e9cisionnel \u00e0 l\u2019intelligence artificielle.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par un jugement rendu le 22 avril 2026, la Cour sup\u00e9rieure du Qu\u00e9bec, si\u00e9geant en Chambre commerciale, a annul\u00e9 la sentence arbitrale au motif que la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019arbitrage convenue entre les parties n\u2019avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 respect\u00e9e. Elle a, en outre, ordonn\u00e9 aux parties de choisir un nouvel arbitre dans les soixante jours suivant le prononc\u00e9 du jugement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un premier temps, la Cour a \u00e9cart\u00e9 le moyen tir\u00e9 de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de la sentence \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public. Les demanderesses soutenaient que la clause de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends, en imposant un d\u00e9lai pour la transmission de l\u2019avis de m\u00e9sentente \u00e0 compter de la naissance du diff\u00e9rend, instituait une modification conventionnelle du d\u00e9lai de prescription l\u00e9gale prohib\u00e9e par le droit qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. Le juge a toutefois rappel\u00e9 que cette question \u00e9tait couverte par le principe de non-r\u00e9vision de la sentence au fond et ne pouvait, \u00e0 elle seule, justifier l\u2019annulation de la sentence. Il a ensuite op\u00e9r\u00e9 une distinction entre le d\u00e9lai de prescription, r\u00e9gi par l&#8217;article 2884 du Code civil du Qu\u00e9bec et relevant de l&#8217;ordre public, et le d\u00e9lai de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance ainsi que le pr\u00e9avis contractuel, qui constituent de simples conditions de recevabilit\u00e9 du recours sans emporter modification de la prescription l\u00e9gale. Sur ce fondement, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 qu&#8217;en tout \u00e9tat de cause, la subordination du droit d\u2019action \u00e0 l\u2019exigence d\u2019un avis pr\u00e9alable ne constituait pas \u00ab&nbsp;<em>un r\u00e9sultat dont l\u2019int\u00e9gration dans l\u2019ordre juridique qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois serait contraire \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un second temps, la Cour s\u2019est prononc\u00e9e sur l\u2019incidence du recours par l\u2019arbitre \u00e0 l\u2019intelligence artificielle sur le respect de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale convenue par les parties. Apr\u00e8s avoir rappel\u00e9 l\u2019importance du choix de l\u2019arbitre, notamment au regard des attentes l\u00e9gitimes des parties quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9daction de la sentence et \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension des motifs qui la fondent, le juge a soulign\u00e9 qu\u2019un arbitre ne pouvait valablement d\u00e9l\u00e9guer l\u2019exercice de son pouvoir d\u00e9cisionnel. La Cour a ensuite relev\u00e9 que plusieurs \u00e9l\u00e9ments figurant dans la sentence &#8211; notamment des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences doctrinales, d\u00e9cisions de justice et sentences arbitrales &#8211; semblaient r\u00e9sulter d\u2019hallucinations g\u00e9n\u00e9r\u00e9es par l\u2019intelligence artificielle. Or, d\u00e8s lors que ces r\u00e9f\u00e9rences \u00e9taient mobilis\u00e9es au soutien du raisonnement juridique ayant conduit \u00e0 la solution retenue par l\u2019arbitre, le juge a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que<em> \u00ab&nbsp;l\u2019autorit\u00e9 de l\u2019Arbitre a[vait] \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9e et qu\u2019il a[vait] abdiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 son r\u00f4le de revoir le r\u00e9sultat&nbsp;\u00bb<\/em>. Par cons\u00e9quent, la sentence a \u00e9t\u00e9 annul\u00e9e pour violation de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale convenue par les parties, lesquelles n\u2019avaient pas entendu voir leur diff\u00e9rend tranch\u00e9 par une autre personne que l\u2019arbitre d\u00e9sign\u00e9.<br>Cette d\u00e9cision in\u00e9dite pose ainsi les premiers jalons du r\u00e9gime applicable \u00e0 l\u2019utilisation de l\u2019intelligence artificielle dans le processus d\u00e9cisionnel arbitral au Qu\u00e9bec. \u00c0 cet \u00e9gard, la Cour prend soin de pr\u00e9ciser que sa d\u00e9cision ne saurait \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e comme impliquant <em>\u00ab&nbsp;que toute sentence qui cite des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences erron\u00e9es ou qui utilise l\u2019intelligence artificielle comme outil de r\u00e9daction devrait subir le m\u00eame sort&nbsp;\u00bb<\/em>. En d\u00e9finitive, la sanction de l\u2019annulation demeure limit\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se dans laquelle l\u2019intelligence artificielle aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine du raisonnement juridique fondant la d\u00e9cision finale, sans que ce dernier ait fait l\u2019objet d\u2019une v\u00e9rification effective par le tribunal arbitral. C\u2019est ainsi avant tout la d\u00e9l\u00e9gation du pouvoir juridictionnel qui est sanctionn\u00e9e, dans le prolongement d\u2019une jurisprudence d\u00e9j\u00e0 bien \u00e9tablie reconnaissant le caract\u00e8re personnel de la mission juridictionnelle de l\u2019arbitre, et ce ind\u00e9pendamment du recours \u00e0 l\u2019intelligence artificielle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Victor Dubreuille<\/strong> is a French Bar-qualified trainee lawyer specializing in international dispute resolution.&nbsp;He holds a dual&nbsp;Bachelor&#8217;s in Law&nbsp;(LL.B.) and Economics (BSc) along with a Master\u2019s in Global Business Law &amp; Governance, a transatlantic program offered by Columbia Law School, Sciences Po, and Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne designed to bridge common law and civil law traditions.&nbsp;His experience in international arbitration and litigation includes internships at A&amp;O Shearman in Paris and Clifford Chance in Luxembourg, as well as participation in the 32nd Willem C. Vis Moot in Vienna.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A landmark Qu\u00e9bec ruling annulled an arbitral award after finding the arbitrator relied on unverified AI-generated legal reasoning, crossing the line from assistance to delegation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":290974,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"182"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_image":"290975","twitter_image":"290975","twitter_description":"A landmark Qu\u00e9bec ruling annulled an arbitral award after finding the arbitrator relied on unverified AI-generated legal reasoning, crossing the line from assistance to delegation.","fb_description":"A landmark Qu\u00e9bec ruling annulled an arbitral award after finding the arbitrator relied on unverified AI-generated legal reasoning, crossing the line from assistance to delegation.","fb_title":"No Delegation of Judgment: Qu\u00e9bec Court Annuls Award Tainted by AI Hallucinations","twitter_title":"No Delegation of Judgment: Qu\u00e9bec Court Annuls Award Tainted by AI Hallucinations"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,205,182,207,188,146,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-290971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-arbitration","category-canada","category-commercial-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-legal-tech","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=290971"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290971\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291145,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290971\/revisions\/291145"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290971"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=290971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}