Employers who substitute legal counsel with AI-generated content are effectively outsourcing legal risk to a tool that has no duty of care to them. Technology can support better business decisions, but it cannot replace legal judgment.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping how people access information, prepare documents, and even attempt to navigate legal processes. In many contexts, AI tools promise speed, efficiency, and cost savings. But the recent Law Society Tribunal decision in Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONLSTH 186 is a stark reminder of a fundamental truth, AI cannot replace legal judgment, legal accountability, or legal responsibility.
In this case, a lawyer whose licence had already been suspended sought to challenge the admissibility of evidence and allege bias against the tribunal. Instead of preparing his materials through proper legal research and professional review, he relied heavily on generative AI tools. The result was catastrophic for his position. Not a single legal proposition in his filings was supported by a reliable authority. The Tribunal found that the materials contained numerous “hallucinations”, meaning fabricated cases, misleading citations, and non-existent legal principles.
The panel went so far as to prepare a 15-page chart identifying the false authorities relied upon. While the applicant acknowledged his mistake and undertook not to use AI again without verification, the damage was already done. His motion was dismissed, and the Tribunal openly criticized the risks associated with submitting AI-generated legal materials without independent verification.
This decision is about far more than one lawyer’s procedural misstep. It highlights a growing risk facing employers, HR leaders, and business owners in an era where AI tools are increasingly marketed as shortcuts to legal compliance.
AI is not legal advice
Many employers are now using AI tools to draft workplace policies, employment contracts, termination letters, accommodation responses, and even internal investigations summaries. The appeal is obvious, faster turnaround, lower cost, and seemingly professional language. But what this case demonstrates is that AI does not “know” the law. It predicts language. When it fills gaps, it can fabricate authority, misstate legal standards, or provide advice that appears reasonable but is legally wrong.
In employment law, where small drafting errors can invalidate termination clauses, expose employers to wrongful dismissal claims, or undermine enforceability of workplace policies, relying on AI without legal review is a serious risk management failure.
If AI can hallucinate case law in front of a tribunal, it can just as easily hallucinate compliance in an employment agreement or HR policy. Employers who rely on these tools without legal oversight may believe they are protected, until they find themselves defending a lawsuit.
Courts and tribunals expect human accountability
A critical theme in Mazaheri is accountability. The Tribunal did not accept “the AI made a mistake” as an excuse. Responsibility rested entirely with the person who submitted the materials. That same principle applies to employers.
If an AI-generated policy leads to a human rights complaint, a constructive dismissal claim, or a regulatory investigation, the employer cannot shift the blame to the technology. The law expects decision-makers to exercise judgment, diligence, and verification. AI does not carry professional liability insurance. Employers do.
The illusion of access to justice
There is an important conversation happening about whether AI can improve access to justice and lower barriers to legal information. While that may be true in limited educational contexts, this case shows the danger of confusing access to information with access to competent legal representation.
Legal systems depend on accuracy, precedent, and accountability. AI does not understand the consequences of being wrong. Employers who substitute legal counsel with AI-generated content are effectively outsourcing legal risk to a tool that has no duty of care to them.
What this means for employers
For employers, the lesson is not that AI should never be used. It is important that AI should never replace legal review. AI can assist with drafting, brainstorming, and administrative efficiency, but it cannot assess legal risk, evolving jurisprudence, or jurisdiction-specific compliance obligations.
Employment law in Ontario continues to evolve rapidly. Courts are scrutinizing termination clauses, constructive dismissal risks, AI disclosure obligations in hiring, workplace surveillance practices, and accommodation standards. In this environment, relying on unverified AI-generated legal content is not innovation; it is exposure.
The bottom line
Technology can support better business decisions, but it cannot replace legal judgment. The Mazaheri decision reinforces that when legal consequences are at stake, responsibility remains with the human decision-maker. Employers who shortcut legal review may save time today, but risk costly litigation tomorrow.
If you are using AI tools to draft contracts, workplace policies, or HR documentation, now is the time to pause and review whether your legal foundation is actually sound.
Need help reviewing AI-generated workplace documents?
Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) advises employers across Ontario and other provinces on employment agreements, workplace policies, termination risk, and regulatory compliance. If you are using AI in your HR or legal workflows, we can help you assess what is safe, what is risky, and what needs to be corrected before it becomes a legal problem.
Before you rely on a tool that cannot be cross-examined in court, speak with experienced employment counsel.
Contact Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) to protect your business before issues arise. Call 905-477-7011 or email contact@minken.com.
“Your Workplace is Our Business” ™
Sign up for our Newsletter to learn about new Employment Law legislation and Court decisions impacting your workplace.
Copyrighted. Not to be copied or reproduced without express permission of Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) ©
Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Related Topics
- The AI Hiring Conundrum: Ontario’s Stride Towards Transparency and Its Impact on the Executive Job Market
- The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI: A Missed Opportunity for Canada?
- Ontario’s New Pay Transparency and Job Posting Requirements