Ensuring Accuracy in the Age of AI: Lessons from BC WCAT A2501051

Introduction

This recent decision of the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) addresses an issue that continues to be a hot topic of discussion in legal circles as AI has continued its rapid proliferation: the of use of AI in preparing legal submissions.

While AI‑assisted drafting tools can offer efficiency gains, they also introduce new professional, ethical, and strategic risks, especially where unverified AI‑generated content makes it way into written submissions. In the absence of guidance from either the WSIB or the WSIAT on the implications of AI use in the preparation of legal submissions, this case provides valuable insight on how they may address this issue in the future.

Facts

The background of this case was straightforward. The worker filed a prohibited action complaint with WorkSafeBC in September 2024, more than one year after his July 2023 termination. WorkSafeBC dismissed the complaint as out of time under section 49 of the Workers Compensation Act, which contains no provision permitting late filing. The worker appealed, arguing “special circumstances” should allow an extension and citing various medical, financial, cultural, and informational barriers. The Tribunal identified that the worker’s written submissions included citations to case law and policies that were incorrect or non‑existent. The summary decision found that the WCAT had no authority to accept a late complaint and dismissed the appeal as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Findings on AI‑Generated Hallucinations

This case contains two findings regarding the potential consequences for parties and counsel who submit false or misleading submissions resulting from an over-reliance on AI.

The first is that the decision-maker may not address the arguments of parties if they are not based in law. While the decision acknowledges that Tribunal decision-makers have an obligation to provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, it also notes that decision-makers at some tribunals[1] have concluded that this duty does not include the obligation to respond to submissions concocted by artificial intelligence that lack a foundation in law.

The second, was that costs may be appropriate where AI‑generated materials cause unnecessary expense for other parties or the tribunal. However, while the WCAT has limited authority to award costs to parties, no such authority exists at the WSIAT, and as such, this finding is of limited value to Workers’ Compensation counsel practicing in Ontario.

Professional Obligations When Using AI-Assisted Drafting

The emerging consensus appears to be that decision-makers have no obligation to respond to submissions generated by AI that lack a foundation in law. Unfortunately, the correlative to that, is that counsel responding to such submissions will by implication have to do so in order to provide competent representation to their clients.

The particular injustice that this works in the Workers’ Compensation context flows directly from the inability of the WSIAT to award legal costs. The result is that when one party introduces false and misleading submissions generated by AI, the other party must then bear the burden associated with investigating and responding to them in order to ensure a just decision in their matter, without any prospect of recovery. In the case of parties represented by counsel, professional obligation further underpins this based on counsel’s duty of candour towards the tribunal[2].

Conclusion

Although the decision comes out of British Columbia, its reasoning resonates strongly with Ontario’s evolving regulatory landscape and practitioners representing injured workers and employers at the WSIB and the WSIAT should heed its lessons.

Because workers’ compensation advocacy frequently involves policy interpretation, historical policy versions, and cross‑referencing complex fact patterns, the risk of AI hallucinations is particularly acute. It is essential that counsel independently and meticulously verify any AI‑generated case law references, WSIB policy references, or statutory analyses before relying on them, or be prepared to face the consequences from increasingly unamused decision-makers.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.