Fake legal authority allegedly from AI tools surfaces in vaccine mandate challenge
A terminated employee's reliance on what appears to be an AI-generated fake legal citation has drawn judicial scrutiny in a recent Alberta human rights decision, highlighting emerging risks as workers increasingly turn to chatbots for legal help. In a decision dated Jan. 27, 2026, tribunal member Rabie Ahmed upheld the dismissal of Robin Davidson's complaint after she was fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccination, while also addressing the complainant's citation of a non-existent court case in her submissions.
Davidson was employed by PCL Constructors Inc. when the company implemented a vaccination policy in September 2021 mandating COVID-19 vaccination for all employees. The policy specifically allowed for medical exemptions and exemptions based on religious beliefs, requiring employees to establish their eligibility for accommodation.
Davidson initially sought a medical exemption on Oct. 1, 2021, which was denied. She then requested a religious exemption on Oct. 25, 2021, completing the accommodation request form herself and submitting a self-authored letter. Her religious objection centered on the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development, stating these tissues came from “aborted babies” and that her beliefs required her to “treat her body as sacred” and not “desecrate” her body with foreign substances.
The employer's policy required the exemption form to be completed by a religious leader. When PCL requested Davidson have the form properly completed by a religious official, she did not respond. She was placed on unpaid leave Oct. 29, 2021, and terminated Nov. 30, after failing to comply with the vaccination requirement.
The phantom case that wasn't
Davidson's legal troubles deepened when she cited “AHRC v. Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs), 2011 ABQB 56” in her review submissions. The respondent's counsel flagged the citation as fabricated, allegedly the result of using artificial intelligence.
Ahmed acknowledged in his decision: “I accept that there is no such authority as ‘AHRC v. Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs), 2011 ABQB 56'’cited and relied upon by the complainant.” Ahmed stated: “However, I am unable to make any specific finding or accept the respondent's submissions regarding any perceived use of LLM by the complainant.”
He used the opportunity to remind parties about court notices regarding AI use, writing: “The extent of my reference to the use of LLM in these reasons is to remind any party appearing before the Tribunal to apprise themselves of the joint notice to the profession issued by our courts which applies to any party self representing or not.”
What employers can require
The tribunal upheld the employer's approach, emphasizing that subjective beliefs alone are insufficient. Citing the leading authority in Pelletier v 1226309 Alberta Ltd. o/a Community Natural Foods, Ahmed noted: “They must provide a sufficient objective basis to establish that the belief is a tenet of a religious faith (whether or not it is widely adopted by others of the faith), and that it is a fundamental or important part of expressing that faith.”
Ahmed found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, stating: "The information before me clearly indicates that that the complainant chose not to provide any objective information regarding her religious belief.”
The decision reinforced that accommodation is a two-way process, with Ahmed noting: “It is not for a complainant in a human rights matter to substitute their own process and refuse the accommodation process of an employer.”
See Davidson v PCL Constructors Inc., 2026 AHRC 15
