ChatGPT and JusticeBot : A qualitative comparison

05/05/2023

This content is not available in the selected language.

Written by Jinzhe Tan – Research Assistant at Cyberjustice Laboratory and Ph.D. student at Université de Montréal

Introduction

ChatGPT^[1] is hot. And it is getting hotter after its API (Application Programming Interface) is available. The availability of ChatGPT API gives developers the opportunity to create products in different areas using the ChatGPT model. Every day, a dozen new applications are launched into the market.^[2]

While ChatGPT’s performance in nature language conversation is impressive, its potential applications are not limited to that. In addition to general-purpose applications such as search engines^[3], it could also be used in domain-specific tasks, such as in the legal domain. ChatGPT provides a natural language interface to knowledge. Such an interface was often expensive, such as in the legal field where users often need to seek the help of professional lawyers when facing legal problems.

We were curious about the performance of ChatGPT in providing legal information compared to AI tools that specialize in such tasks, and for this reason we conducted an experiment comparing ChatGPT and JusticeBot. JusticeBot is a legal self-help tool developed at Cyberjustice Laboratory with Hannes Westermann as lead researcher. It is based on the idea of expert systems and machine learning, where human legal experts build a pathway that uses a series of questions to direct users to the legal information interface that matches their situation. In a previous blog, Hannes examined the general technical differences between the two approaches. Here, we conduct a hands-on experiment to evaluate the concrete differences between JusticeBot and ChatGPT.

In this piece, we will examine ChatGPT’s ability to provide legal information, understand the strengths of the ChatGPT and JusticeBot, and look at opportunities for integration of the different tools in the future.

Related Work

Experiments on ChatGPT’s performance in the legal field have been conducted extensively, according to studies testing ChatGPT’s performance on the U.S. bar Exam^[4], ChatGPT already boasts a half correct rate, which is slightly lower than human performance but has demonstrated its potential. In the same tests conducted on the GPT-4, the GPT-4 showed a substantial improvement in performance, the estimated percentages have exceeded ninety percent.^[5]There were also study that tested ChatGPT’s performance on the law school test, and the results proved that it was able to pass the exam, but overall, it could only be considered a “mediocre law student”.^[6] It was also found that ChatGPT has some ability to write legal documents.^[7]

In addition to testing ChatGPT using exam sets, research has been conducted on comparisons between ChatGPT and human experts, and corpus-based evaluations of ChatGPT performance in the legal field have been conducted.^[8] The study found that ChatGPT-generated answers were generally evaluated as more helpful than humans’,^[9] but it also found that ChatGPT may fabricate facts, especially in the legal field, where ChatGPT may quote non-existent legal texts to answer questions.[10]

The above study also has some limitations in that they took answers to legal questions from Wikipedia and Baidu Baike^[11], which are not very reliable due to the specificity of the legal field.[12] After observing the legal questions answered in the database, it was found that a large number of the answers were actually personal promotions by lawyers.^[13] Moreover, the evaluation of generated answers in this study was done by volunteers, and the evaluation was based more on helpfulness, as well as the fluency and length of the generated answers, and may not accurately evaluate the legal accuracy of the generated answers.

It is worth noting that in the legal field, judges and lawyers, who have specialized training in law school, are better equipped to spot errors and flaws in the AI generated legal contents. However, lay people may not be able to evaluate the accuracy of the provided information. So when we talk about legal self-help tools, legal information accuracy above the “pass mark” is not enough because legal self-help tools will serve a wide range of lay people, and every minor information error may potentially affect the decisions of many people.

Methodology

In this piece, we will use three simulated cases where users seek help from ChatGPT and JusticeBot to compare and evaluate the performance of the two tools.

We drew upon the “HHH” (helpful, honest, harmless) comparison criteria from previous research^[14] and adapted it to the objectives of this study. In the resulting comprehensive comparison criteria, we aim to test two tools for:

Ability to understand natural language and legal terms described by a layperson.
Should provide information and advice that is correct, reliable and consistent with legal sources such as statutes, regulations and case law.
Provides solid and executable next steps.
Shouldn’t provide fabricate information or mislead the user.
Should not generate toxic or offensive statements.
Easy to use, low requirements for users.

Since the public version of JusticeBot mainly covers landlord-tenant cases, in order to ensure the feasibility of comparison, we limit the selected cases mainly to the above range. We use ChatGPT for case generation, after which the cases are manually selected and adjusted from the generated cases to ensure that the selected cases cover as many aspects of test tools’ capabilities as possible. The prompt we use is “You are a law professor who needs to present landlord-tenant cases to your students. Please give me three cases with specific circumstances describing what parties were involved, what happened, and who needed to seek legal advice.”

Miller v. Johnson

In this case, Ms. Johnson rented a property to Mr. Miller. After Mr. Miller moved in, he was late in paying rent from the second month onward. At one year after moving in, Mr. Miller stopped paying rent altogether. Ms. Johnson asked Miller to fix the problem, but he refused. Ms. Johnson then sought legal advice and sued Mr. Miller for breach of contract. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.

2. Jones v. Smith

In this case, Ms. Jones rented a property from Mr. Smith. After moving in, Ms. Jones discovered that the property had a serious pest infestation that made it unlivable. She asked Mr. Smith to fix the problem, but he refused. Ms. Jones then withheld rent payments until the problem was resolved. Mr. Smith sued Ms. Jones for non-payment of rent. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.

3. Johnson v. Smith

In this case, Mr. Johnson rented an apartment from Mr. Smith. The lease agreement stated that pets were not allowed in the apartment. However, after moving in, Mr. Johnson purchased a small dog and kept it in the apartment. Mr. Smith discovered the dog during a routine inspection and demanded that Mr. Johnson get rid of it. Mr. Johnson refused and argued that he had a legal right to keep the dog as a companion animal for his mental health. Mr. Smith disagreed and threatened to evict Mr. Johnson if he did not get rid of the dog. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.

Prompt process

To avoid the interference of ChatGPT’s ability to remember consecutive conversations with the results, we tested each case in a new session. Although JusticeBot does not have the ability to remember the previous conversation, each test was also conducted in JusticeBot’s new session in order to ensure the comparability of the experiment.

Given that JusticeBot primarily provides information in French, we will translate the information provided by JusticeBot into English as part of our experimental process.

Results

Overall, ChatGPT and JusticeBot have different advantages in different aspects. ChatGPT has very good performance in language understanding, but not satisfactory performance in information accuracy, completeness and reliability, while JusticeBot has better performance in the above three aspects. Both tools perform well in terms of harmlessness, with ChatGPT not generating harmful information during our experiments, and JusticeBot avoiding it altogether due to its features. In terms of user experience, ChatGPT requires little adaptation due to its natural language interface, and users can continuously follow up on the answers they receive, which is very close to consulting with a lawyer. JusticeBot uses a series of simple questions to help users find the correct pathway, and users only need to make a few simple clicks to get the information they need, and the user experience is also very good.

Language Understanding. ChatGPT has a good understanding of natural language, even with some typos and confusion in the description, it can still understand what the user means. ChatGPT also has the ability to understand different ways of describing the same or similar situations, such as bed bugs and pest infestation. In JusticeBot, however, the paths that users can choose are limited by the scope of the system development, for example, if users do not consider bed bugs and pest infestation to be legally substitutable, they might not be able to choose a corresponding path when faced with a non-bed bug infestation.

This language understanding capability of ChatGPT has significant implications for legal self-help tools, meaning that lay people can more easily articulate their needs and get answers when using these tools.

However, ChatGPT tends to generate excessively long responses, and while in some cases detailed responses can provide users with more adequate information, in other cases ChatGPT generates responses that are simply semantic repetitions of the same meaning, which may cause some interference with the user’s absorption of the information.

Accuracy. The accuracy of legal information provided by ChatGPT is currently unsatisfactory and needs improvement. It has shown a strong “hallucination” in this regard, generating a large number of false legal provisions and false cases.

ChatGPT has provided correct information in some cases, such as in Miller v. Johnson, where ChatGPT correctly identified the relevant dispute resolution institution as the Tribunal administratif du logement (formerly the Régie du logement). This may mean that ChatGPT has a higher accuracy in providing non-numbered and more general information.

In Jones v. Smith Case, ChatGPT provided content that was quite close to the actual legal provisions, but the information it provided deviated from the actual legal provisions in terms of key information. This could cause additional confusion to the user, as the provisions appear to be credible, relevant to the rental case, and the corresponding legal article numbers are quite close to the actual numbers. In the context of no expertise, there is a high probability that users will trust the information provided by ChatGPT.

Surprisingly, in Johnson v. Smith Case, ChatGPT provides legal content that is very similar to the original Charter of human rights and freedoms, and we do not know yet the reason why ChatGPT is able to provide such a high level of accurate content. However, although the content of the article is almost correct, its relevance to the case is not great.

Completeness. JusticeBot has a better performance in providing complete information, and ChatGPT has shown the ability to proactively provide additional relevant information in some cases.

In the case of Jones vs. Smith, ChatGPT addressed not only the resolution of a housing infestation and the landlord’s obligations, but also whether the tenant had the right to reduce or suspend rent payments.

JusticeBot exhibits a higher level of completeness in providing legal information. For instance, users may overlook important legal facts such as whether the other party has been notified or when the other party is overdue. It is often challenging for laypeople to actively provide such information when selecting a legal pathway. JusticeBot overcomes this issue by providing relevant information during the user’s pathway guidance, as well as offering relevant legal cases for user reference. Users have a higher probability of getting comprehensive information during the use of JusticeBot.

During our experiments, we observed that JusticeBot’s ability to provide helpful information to users is limited when they encounter situations that are not covered by the system. Therefore, the JusticeBot system requires regular maintenance and expansion by experts to cover a broader range of legal matters. On the other hand, ChatGPT is highly scalable and can answer nearly any question posed by the user, although the information it provides often goes wrong.

Reliability. As mentioned above, ChatGPT generates false information, especially about legal provisions and legal cases. ChatGPT also showed a strong confidence in its generated content and was less willing to modify its answers when users repeatedly asked them about it. For example, ChatGPT provided us with a case called Tan v. Bailey [2018 ONCA 260]. Despite our repeated confirmation, ChatGPT insisted that the case was genuine.

Prompt: are you sure it is a real case?

Answer: Yes, I can confirm that Tan v. Bailey [2018 ONCA 260] is a real case that was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2018. The case can be found on the CanLII website, which is a free online legal database in Canada. If you are interested in learning more about the case or reading the court’s decision, I would recommend searching for it on the CanLII website or another legal database.

However, through the search in CanLII, the real [2018 ONCA 260] case should be R. v. Jennings^[15].

This behavior substantially reduces the reliability of ChatGPT in providing legal information. It is difficult for a layperson to point out errors in the information provided, and ChatGPT does not reflect and admit that its answers were faulty in follow-up questions, which can cause significant problems for the normal user.

Since the information provided by JusticeBot is vetted by experts, JusticeBot’s performance in terms of reliability is more reassuring.

Harmless. In our experiments, neither ChatGPT nor JusticeBot produced any toxic or harmful information, demonstrating their satisfactory performance in this regard. However, it should be noted that while OpenAI has implemented a filtering mechanism to prevent the generation of harmful content by ChatGPT, it is still possible for the system to produce such content under certain forced situations.

User-friendly. Overall, both ChatGPT and JusticeBot offer excellent user interaction. ChatGPT enables direct communication with users in natural language, reducing the learning curve and making it easier to use. In contrast, JusticeBot streamlines the process of obtaining legal information by allowing users to select the appropriate options rather than having to describe their situation in detail.

Discussion and Conclusion

ChatGPT and JusticeBot demonstrate impressive capabilities in different domains. ChatGPT offers an outstanding interactive experience with minimal learning cost for users, allowing them to describe their legal matters using fragmented language and subsequently correct or reinforce the facts during the conversation. Combining this capability with existing legal self-help tools, such as JusticeBot, and providing a natural language interface for JusticeBot could greatly enhance the user experience.

However, ChatGPT occasionally generates “hallucinations” in the legal field, and this issue may be addressed to some extent in GPT-4. As mentioned above, it is not enough for a legal self-help tool to provide information with a passing grade of accuracy, it needs to be able to provide users with accurate, up-to-date, and sourced legal information, and it must ensure the purity of its output in order for users to feel reliable during using the tool. Given that ChatGPT is a language model rather than a knowledge dataset, it is difficult to generate accurate information. However, there is a chance that the lack of functionality in this area of ChatGPT will be addressed in the future. JusticeBot can provide the logic engine for ChatGPT, where the accuracy of the knowledge is guaranteed, and ChatGPT is used to understand the problems asked by users and to communicate existing legal knowledge to users in a natural language format.^[16] We will make further attempts in this area in the future.

Overall, ChatGPT and JusticeBot are not in competition in the field of legal information provision, they have their own merits in different aspects, and it would be a very credible direction to merge their merits, as also discussed here.

Appendix

I. Cases Generation (Date: February 28, 2023)

Prompt: You are a law professor who needs to present landlord-tenant cases to your students. Please give me three cases with specific circumstances describing what parties were involved, what happened, and who needed to seek legal advice.

Answer from ChatGPT: Sure, here are three landlord-tenant cases that might be useful for your students:

Miller v. Johnson

In this case, Mr. Miller rented a property from Ms. Johnson. After moving in, Mr. Miller discovered that the property had a serious mold problem that was affecting his health. He asked Ms. Johnson to fix the problem, but she refused. Mr. Miller then sought legal advice and sued Ms. Johnson for breach of contract and negligence, arguing that she had failed to maintain the property in a safe and habitable condition.

Parties involved: Mr. Miller (tenant) and Ms. Johnson (landlord)

What happened: Mr. Miller discovered a mold problem in the rental property that was affecting his health, and Ms. Johnson refused to fix it.

Who needed to seek legal advice: Mr. Miller

Jones v. Smith

Parties involved: Ms. Jones (tenant) and Mr. Smith (landlord)

What happened: Ms. Jones discovered a pest infestation in the rental property, and Mr. Smith refused to fix it. Ms. Jones withheld rent payments until the problem was resolved, and Mr. Smith sued her for non-payment of rent.

Who needed to seek legal advice: Both parties (Ms. Jones for withholding rent and Mr. Smith for suing for non-payment of rent)

Brown v. Lee

In this case, Ms. Brown rented a property from Mr. Lee. After moving in, she discovered that the property had a serious plumbing issue that made it difficult to use the bathroom and kitchen. She asked Mr. Lee to fix the problem, but he refused. Ms. Brown then attempted to fix the problem herself and accidentally caused further damage. Mr. Lee sued Ms. Brown for the cost of repairs.

Parties involved: Ms. Brown (tenant) and Mr. Lee (landlord)

What happened: Ms. Brown discovered a plumbing issue in the rental property, and Mr. Lee refused to fix it. Ms. Brown attempted to fix the problem herself and caused further damage, and Mr. Lee sued her for the cost of repairs.

Who needed to seek legal advice: Both parties (Ms. Brown for attempting to fix the problem herself and Mr. Lee for suing for the cost of repairs)

Prompt: good, please give me another case in landlord-tenant area, this case should be a little tricky, there is no right answer to it.

Answer from ChatGPT: Sure, here’s another landlord-tenant case that might be of interest to your students:

Johnson v. Smith

Parties involved: Mr. Johnson (tenant) and Mr. Smith (landlord)

What happened: Mr. Johnson violated the lease agreement by getting a pet dog and keeping it in the apartment, and Mr. Smith demanded that he get rid of it. Mr. Johnson argued that the dog was a companion animal for his mental health and had a legal right to keep it, while Mr. Smith disagreed and threatened to evict him if he did not comply.

Who needed to seek legal advice: Both parties (Mr. Johnson for asserting his legal right to keep a companion animal and Mr. Smith for determining whether he had the right to evict Mr. Johnson for violating the lease agreement)

II. Experiments

Miller v. Johnson Case

Case situation

a) Experiment on ChatGPT (Date: March 5th, 2023)

Prompt: Suppose you are Ms. Johnson, you have no background knowledge of the law, and you are a party to the following case: “In this case, Ms. Johnson rented a property to Mr. Miller. After Mr. Miller moved in, he was late in paying rent from the second month onward. At one year after moving in, Mr. Miller stopped paying rent altogether. Ms. Johnson asked Miller to fix the problem, but he refused. Ms. Johnson then sought legal advice and sued Mr. Miller for breach of contract. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.” Please simulate what you would say as a lay person to your lawyer when you are confronted.

Answer: As a lay person, I would explain the situation to my lawyer and say something along the lines of:

“I rented out my property to Mr. Miller, but he stopped paying rent after the first year. I asked him to pay, but he refused. I’m not sure what my options are, but I want to take legal action against him for breaking our rental contract. I don’t have any background knowledge of the law, so I need your advice on what to do next. Also, since this case took place in Quebec, Canada, I’m not familiar with the laws and procedures here. Can you please guide me through the process and explain what I can expect?”

Prompt (new session): I rented out my property to Mr. Miller, but he stopped paying rent after the first year. I asked him to pay, but he refused. I’m not sure what my options are, but I want to take legal action against him for breaking our rental contract. I don’t have any background knowledge of the law, so I need your advice on what to do next. Also, since this case took place in Quebec, Canada, I’m not familiar with the laws and procedures here. Can you please guide me through the process and explain what I can expect?

Answer: As an AI language model, I cannot provide legal advice or represent you in court. However, I can provide some general information on the process of taking legal action against a tenant who has broken a rental contract in Quebec, Canada.

Firstly, you should review your rental contract and ensure that you have clear evidence of Mr. Miller’s breach of contract. This could include documentation of his failure to pay rent or any other violations of the terms of the lease agreement.

You may then wish to send a demand letter to Mr. Miller, stating your intention to take legal action if he does not pay the outstanding rent or otherwise remedy the breach of contract. This letter can be drafted by a lawyer or legal professional, or you can use a template to draft it yourself.

If Mr. Miller fails to respond to the demand letter or refuses to comply with the terms of the lease agreement, you can consider filing a lawsuit against him. In Quebec, you can file a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec if the amount in dispute is $15,000 or less. For amounts exceeding $15,000, you will need to file a claim in the Superior Court of Quebec.

To file a claim, you will need to complete a form and pay a filing fee. You will also need to provide evidence of the breach of contract and any damages you have suffered as a result.

Once the claim is filed, Mr. Miller will be served with a copy of the claim and will have a certain period of time to respond. If he fails to respond, you may be able to obtain a default judgment in your favor. If he does respond, the case will proceed to a trial, where you will need to present evidence to support your claim.

If the court finds in your favor, it may award you damages to cover the outstanding rent, any other losses you have suffered, and legal costs. However, it is important to note that even if you obtain a judgment against Mr. Miller, you may still face challenges in actually collecting the amount awarded.

It is advisable to seek the advice of a lawyer or legal professional to help guide you through the legal process and ensure that your rights are protected.

Prompt: Thank you so much, is there any legal provision I can use in this case?

Answer: Yes, there are several legal provisions in Quebec that can be used to enforce a rental contract and recover unpaid rent from a tenant who has breached the agreement.

One such provision is Article 1854 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which sets out the obligations of the tenant to pay rent and the consequences of non-payment. This article provides that a tenant who fails to pay rent can be evicted from the property and held liable for any damages caused by their breach of contract.

Another provision that may be relevant in your case is Article 1902 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which allows a landlord to terminate a lease in the event of a serious breach of contract by the tenant. This could include failure to pay rent or other violations of the lease agreement.

Additionally, Quebec’s Residential Tenancies Act provides further protections for landlords and tenants and sets out the legal procedures for resolving disputes. This legislation outlines the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and tenants, and provides for the resolution of disputes through the Tribunal administratif du logement (formerly the Régie du logement).

It is important to note that the legal process for enforcing a rental contract can be complex, and it is recommended that you seek the advice of a lawyer or legal professional to ensure that your rights are protected and that you are able to navigate the legal system effectively.

Prompt: Thanks! Can you provide me a case that is similar to my situation?

Answer: Since I do not have specific information about your situation, I cannot provide a specific case that is similar to your situation. However, I can give you an example of a case related to unpaid rent in Quebec.

In the case of Chiasson c. Bergeron, 2012 QCCQ 2670, the landlord brought an action against the tenant for unpaid rent and damages to the property. The landlord was seeking to terminate the lease and recover the unpaid rent and damages.

The court found that the tenant had breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent and causing damage to the property. The court ordered the tenant to pay the outstanding rent, as well as damages to cover the cost of repairs to the property.

The court also ordered the tenant to vacate the property and awarded possession of the property to the landlord. The tenant was also ordered to pay the landlord’s legal costs.

This case illustrates how a landlord can take legal action against a tenant who has breached a lease agreement by failing to pay rent and causing damage to the property. It highlights the importance of having clear documentation of the lease agreement and any breaches of the agreement, as well as the need for experienced legal representation to help navigate the legal system and protect one’s rights and interests.

Prompt: Where can I find the information about Chiasson c. Bergeron, 2012 QCCQ 2670?

Answer: You can find information about the case Chiasson c. Bergeron, 2012 QCCQ 2670 by accessing the Quebec courts’ online database. This database contains judgments from the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Quebec, and the Court of Quebec.

To access the database, you can visit the website of the Quebec Ministry of Justice and click on the “Jurisprudence” tab. From there, you can search for the case by entering the name of the parties involved or the citation number (2012 QCCQ 2670).

Once you have found the case, you can read the judgment to gain a better understanding of how the law was applied in the specific situation. Keep in mind that court decisions are specific to the facts and circumstances of each case, so it may not be directly applicable to your situation. However, it can provide valuable insight into how courts have interpreted and applied the law in similar cases.

b) Experiment on JusticeBot (Date: March 5th, 2023)

JusticeBot: Welcome to JusticeBot!

Answer: I understand.

JusticeBot: Are you an owner or a tenant?

Answer: Owner

JusticeBot: How can I help you today?

Answer: The tenant does not pay his rent.

JusticeBot: Is the tenant currently in arrears with the payment of his rent?

Answer: Yes

JusticeBot: Is the tenant more than 3 weeks late in paying his rent?

Answer: Yes

JusticeBot: Is the tenant often late in paying rent?

Answer: Yes

JusticeBot: Are you seriously harmed by the repeated late payments?

Answer: Yes

Information page of JusticeBot:

Failure to pay rent.

When the tenant does not pay his rent in full on the agreed day, it is possible to file an application with the Administrative Housing Tribunal to recover the rent due, interest and costs of the application.

The mere delay in the payment of rent is not a sufficient reason to obtain the termination of the lease. The termination of the lease could be obtained if the delay is significant (more than 3 weeks) or if delays are frequent and cause serious harm to the landlord.

Significant late payment.

When the payment is delayed by more than 3 weeks, it is a significant delay. You can ask the Administrative Housing Tribunal to pay you the rent, but also the termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant and other occupants.

It is possible to avoid termination if your tenant pays, before the judgment, the rent due as well as the fees and interest at the rates provided for in section 28 of the Tax Administration Act, or at the rate agreed upon by the parties if it is lower.

If the lease is terminated and your tenant is evicted, the tenant will be responsible (even if he no longer lives in the unit) for the loss of rent and expenses you have incurred (heating, electricity, newspaper advertisement) until the unit is rented again. However, you should try to minimize your losses (for example, take steps quickly to find a new tenant).

Source: Administrative Housing Tribunal

Frequent delays in rent payment by the tenant.

When your tenant often pays rent late and you suffer serious prejudice, you can ask the Administrative Housing Tribunal to terminate the lease.

Once the process has begun, with some exceptions, it would not be possible for the tenant to prevent the termination of the lease by paying the rent due before the date of the judgment.

However, the Tribunal administratif du logement could refuse the immediate termination of the lease and could order the tenant to pay the rent on the first day of each month. If this order is not respected, and therefore the tenant fails to pay the rent again, then you could ask for the lease to be terminated immediately.

Source: Administrative Housing Tribunal

JusticeBot also provide some cases that users can refer to.

2. Jones v. Smith Case

Case situation

a) Experiment on ChatGPT (Date: March 16, 2023)

Prompt: Suppose you are Ms. Johnes, you have no background knowledge of the law, and you are a party to the following case: “In this case, Ms. Jones rented a property from Mr. Smith. After moving in, Ms. Jones discovered that the property had a serious pest infestation that made it unlivable. She asked Mr. Smith to fix the problem, but he refused. Ms. Jones then withheld rent payments until the problem was resolved. Mr. Smith sued Ms. Jones for non-payment of rent. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.” Please simulate what you would say as a lay person to your lawyer when you are confronted.

Answer: As a lay person, if I were confronted with this case, I would say the following to my lawyer:

I rented a property from Mr. Smith, and after moving in, I found out that it had a serious pest infestation that made it unlivable. I asked Mr. Smith to fix the problem, but he refused to do so. As a result, I withheld my rent payments until the issue was resolved.

However, Mr. Smith has sued me for non-payment of rent, and I don’t know what to do. I need your help to understand my rights and what options are available to me. Can you explain to me the laws that apply to tenant-landlord relationships in Quebec, Canada? And can you help me defend myself against Mr. Smith’s lawsuit?

Prompt (new session): I rented a property from Mr. Smith, and after moving in, I found out that it had a serious pest infestation that made it unlivable. I asked Mr. Smith to fix the problem, but he refused to do so. As a result, I withheld my rent payments until the issue was resolved.

Answer: As an AI language model, I can provide you with general information on tenant-landlord laws in Quebec, Canada, but I cannot offer legal advice. You should consult with a licensed lawyer or a legal clinic for specific legal advice regarding your situation.

In Quebec, the laws governing landlord-tenant relationships are primarily found in the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Rental Board Act, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. The following are some of the key points you should know:

The landlord has a legal obligation to provide the tenant with a dwelling that is safe, healthy, and meets the minimum housing standards set out by law. This includes ensuring that the premises are free of pests and other infestations.

If the tenant discovers a defect in the dwelling that makes it uninhabitable or unfit for its intended use, the tenant can notify the landlord in writing and request that the problem be fixed. If the landlord does not fix the problem within a reasonable time, the tenant may be entitled to terminate the lease or reduce the rent.

The tenant has a legal obligation to pay rent on time and to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition.

If the tenant withholds rent, the landlord may take legal action to evict the tenant and recover the unpaid rent.

If the landlord sues the tenant for unpaid rent, the tenant may raise a counterclaim for breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide a safe and habitable dwelling.

Based on the information you provided, it appears that you have a potential defense to Mr. Smith’s lawsuit for unpaid rent, as you have a valid claim that the dwelling was uninhabitable due to a serious pest infestation. However, the outcome of your case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of your situation, as well as the evidence you can present in court.

It is highly recommended that you seek legal advice from a licensed lawyer or a legal clinic as soon as possible to discuss your options and develop a strategy for defending yourself against Mr. Smith’s lawsuit.

Prompt: Sorry, there seems to be some contradiction between 3 and 4, can I as a tenant suspend or reduce my rent payment or not?

Answer: I apologize for the confusion. In Quebec, a tenant may not simply suspend or reduce their rent payments without first taking specific steps to assert their rights under the law. If a tenant withholds rent without following the proper legal procedures, they may be subject to legal action by the landlord for non-payment of rent.

Under the Quebec Civil Code, if the tenant finds a serious defect in the dwelling that makes it uninhabitable or unsuitable for its intended use, they must provide written notice to the landlord and give them a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem. If the landlord fails to take action to remedy the situation, the tenant may file an application with the Rental Board to request permission to suspend rent payments or to seek a reduction in rent.

The tenant must continue to pay their rent in full until the Rental Board issues a decision on their application. If the tenant stops paying rent before obtaining permission from the Rental Board, they may be liable for non-payment of rent and face legal action from the landlord.

So, in summary, a tenant may not simply withhold or reduce rent payments without first following the proper legal procedures in Quebec. The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord and give them a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem, and if the landlord fails to act, the tenant may file an application with the Rental Board to seek permission to suspend rent payments or seek a reduction in rent.

Prompt: Thanks! Could you please provide me some legal provisions and related Cases to help me understand?

Answer: Certainly! Here are some relevant legal provisions and cases that may be useful in understanding tenant-landlord relationships in Quebec:

Quebec Civil Code, Articles 1851-1889: These articles set out the general rules governing residential leases in Quebec, including the obligations of both the landlord and the tenant.

Quebec Rental Board Act (R.S.Q., c. L-0.1): This act establishes the Rental Board (Tribunal administratif du logement) and sets out the procedures for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants, including applications for rent reductions or suspensions.

Quebec Consumer Protection Act (R.S.Q., c. P-40.1): This act provides additional protections for tenants in Quebec and sets out rules related to the advertising, sale, and leasing of residential properties.

Here are some cases that may be relevant to your situation:

Blanchard v. Coderre, 2009 QCCA 248: In this case, the Court of Appeal of Quebec held that a tenant may not withhold rent payments without first following the proper legal procedures, including providing written notice to the landlord and filing an application with the Rental Board.

Laval (City) v. Guay, 2011 QCCQ 10724: In this case, the Rental Board allowed a tenant to suspend rent payments due to a major infestation of bedbugs, finding that the problem rendered the dwelling uninhabitable and that the landlord had failed to take adequate measures to address the issue.

Desjardins v. Strasbourg, 2015 QCCQ 5580: In this case, the Rental Board ordered the landlord to make repairs to a rental property that had serious deficiencies, including a rodent infestation, and allowed the tenant to seek a rent reduction until the repairs were completed.

It’s important to note that each case is decided based on its own facts and circumstances, and that the outcome of your case will depend on the specific evidence you can present to the court or Rental Board. It is highly recommended that you seek legal advice from a licensed lawyer or a legal clinic for specific advice on your situation.

Prompt: Thank you, can you provide the exact legal text for me to quote?

Answer: Certainly! Here are some relevant legal provisions from the Quebec Civil Code, the Quebec Rental Board Act, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act:

Quebec Civil Code, Articles 1851-1889:

Article 1854: The lessor shall deliver the dwelling in a good state of repair.

Article 1855: The lessor is bound to maintain the dwelling in good repair throughout the lease.

Article 1856: The lessor is bound to maintain the dwelling in a condition suitable for its use throughout the lease.

Article 1861: If, during the lease, the dwelling becomes uninhabitable or unsuitable for its use, the lessee may demand that the lessor provide another dwelling or reduce the rent. If the lessor fails to do so, the lessee may obtain a judgment to that effect.

Quebec Rental Board Act (R.S.Q., c. L-0.1):

Section 189: The Board may, on the application of a lessee or a lessor, determine the conditions of the lease or decide any dispute that may arise between a lessee and a lessor, whether or not the lease has been written. The Board may also, on the application of a lessee or a lessor, order the suspension or reduction of rent.

Section 190: The Board may order the suspension of rent if the dwelling is uninhabitable or unsuitable for its use, or if the lessor has not fulfilled his obligation to make necessary repairs. The Board may order a reduction of rent if the condition of the dwelling does not correspond to the standard prescribed by law or by regulation, or if the rent is excessive.

Quebec Consumer Protection Act (R.S.Q., c. P-40.1):

Section 197: A lessee may apply for the reduction of the rent to the Rental Board if the lessee is of the opinion that the rent is excessive or that the dwelling does not correspond to the standard prescribed by law or by regulation.

Section 198: A lessee may apply to the Rental Board for the suspension or reduction of rent if the dwelling is uninhabitable or unsuitable for its use.

I hope this helps! Please note that this is general information and should not be construed as legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue or question, it is recommended that you consult with a licensed lawyer or legal clinic.

Prompt: Ok, I have no background knowledge of law, are you sure these laws and cases are real and useful?

Answer: Yes, these laws and cases are real and useful for understanding tenant-landlord relationships in Quebec. The Quebec Civil Code, the Quebec Rental Board Act, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act are all actual statutes that govern residential leases in Quebec. The cases I mentioned are actual legal cases that were decided by courts and the Rental Board in Quebec.

However, it’s important to note that the law can be complex and interpreting it correctly can sometimes require the help of a legal professional. If you have a specific legal issue or question, I would recommend consulting with a licensed lawyer or legal clinic for guidance.

b) Experiment on JusticeBot (Date: March 16, 2023)

JusticeBot: Welcome to JusticeBot!

Answer: I understand.

JusticeBot: Are you an owner or a tenant?

Answer: Tenant

JusticeBot: How can I help you today?

Answer: There are bed bugs in my accommodation.

JusticeBot: Have you notified your landlord of the presence of bed bugs?

Answer: Yes

JusticeBot: Could you be considered to have contributed to the infestation?

Answer: No

JusticeBot: Did the owner deal with the bed bug problem diligently?

Answer: No

JusticeBot: Did you collaborate in the efforts of the owner to exterminate bedbugs?

Answer: No

Information page of JusticeBot:

Presence of bed bugs

Here are some clues that could indicate the presence of bed bugs:

Itching and bites on the skin
Black spots on the seams of the mattress
Blood on sheets and pillows

Source: ville.montreal.qc.ca

Learn more about bed bugs here

If they are not bed bugs, you can refer to the website of the Administrative Housing Tribunal for more information on your situation.

The owner does not deal with the problem of bedbugs adequately.

If it does not fulfill its legal obligations, you could have recourse against your landlord for the bed bug infestation.

Collaborate in the efforts of the owner to exterminate bedbugs.

The tenant must cooperate in the extermination efforts to put an end to the bed bug infestation.

For example, the lack of adequate preparation of the dwelling or the poor condition of the dwelling can interfere with treatments and contribute to the infestation.

Source: SOQUIJ: Bed bugs at housing

3. Johnson v. Smith

Case situation

a) Experiment on ChatGPT (Date: March 17, 2023)

Prompt: Suppose you are Ms. Smith, you have no background knowledge of the law, and you are a party to the following case: “In this case, Mr. Johnson rented an apartment from Mr. Smith. The lease agreement stated that pets were not allowed in the apartment. However, after moving in, Mr. Johnson purchased a small dog and kept it in the apartment. Mr. Smith discovered the dog during a routine inspection and demanded that Mr. Johnson get rid of it. Mr. Johnson refused and argued that he had a legal right to keep the dog as a companion animal for his mental health. Mr. Smith disagreed and threatened to evict Mr. Johnson if he did not get rid of the dog. This case took place in Quebec, Canada.” Please simulate what you would say as a lay person to your lawyer when you are confronted.

Answer: As Ms. Smith, I rented an apartment to Mr. Johnson with a lease agreement that stated no pets were allowed. During a routine inspection, I found out that he had a small dog in the apartment, which violates the lease agreement. When I asked him to get rid of the dog, he refused, claiming that he had a legal right to keep it as a companion animal for his mental health. I don’t know if this is a valid legal argument, and I’m not sure if I can still enforce the no-pets clause in the lease agreement and evict him, or if I have to allow him to keep the dog. I need to know what my options are in this situation and what the legal implications of this case are for me as a landlord. This is happening in Quebec, Canada.

Prompt (new session): As Ms. Smith, I rented an apartment to Mr. Johnson with a lease agreement that stated no pets were allowed. During a routine inspection, I found out that he had a small dog in the apartment, which violates the lease agreement. When I asked him to get rid of the dog, he refused, claiming that he had a legal right to keep it as a companion animal for his mental health. I don’t know if this is a valid legal argument, and I’m not sure if I can still enforce the no-pets clause in the lease agreement and evict him, or if I have to allow him to keep the dog. I need to know what my options are in this situation and what the legal implications of this case are for me as a landlord. This is happening in Quebec, Canada.

Answer: As a landlord in Quebec, you are subject to the Quebec Civil Code, which governs the landlord-tenant relationship in the province. Under the Civil Code, tenants have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their rental unit, which includes the right to have a companion animal if the animal is required for medical or psychological reasons.

However, in order for a tenant to have the right to keep a companion animal, they must provide evidence that the animal is necessary to alleviate a disability. This evidence can come in the form of a letter or prescription from a healthcare professional. If the tenant is unable to provide such evidence, then you as the landlord would be within your rights to enforce the no-pets clause in the lease agreement and evict the tenant if they refuse to comply.

In the case of Mr. Johnson, if he is able to provide evidence that the dog is a companion animal required for his mental health, then you may not be able to enforce the no-pets clause in the lease agreement and evict him. However, if he is unable to provide such evidence, then you would be within your rights to enforce the lease agreement and evict him if he refuses to remove the dog from the premises.

It’s important to note that even if Mr. Johnson is able to provide evidence of the dog’s status as a companion animal, you may still be able to enforce certain restrictions or conditions related to the animal. For example, you could require that the dog be well-behaved and not cause any damage to the rental unit or disturb other tenants.

In any case, it’s recommended that you consult with a lawyer who specializes in landlord-tenant law in Quebec to ensure that you are acting within your legal rights and to protect yourself from any potential legal issues.

Prompt: Thanks! Could you please provide some legal provisions and related cases that I can refer to?

Answer: Sure, here are some legal provisions and related cases that may be helpful:

Quebec Civil Code: Article 1854 – This article states that the tenant has a right to the peaceful enjoyment of the rental unit.

Quebec Civil Code: Article 1974 – This article states that a landlord cannot evict a tenant without a serious reason, such as the tenant failing to comply with the lease agreement.

Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: Section 10 – This section prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires accommodation of disabilities.

Quebec Human Rights Tribunal: In the case of C.L. c. B. L., 2014 QCTDP 16, the Tribunal held that a tenant with a mental health disability had the right to keep a companion animal in her apartment, despite a no-pets clause in the lease agreement. The Tribunal found that the animal was necessary to alleviate the tenant’s disability and that the landlord had failed to accommodate the tenant’s disability.

Quebec Superior Court: In the case of A.R. c. Beaumont, 2018 QCCS 1144, the Court held that a tenant did not have the right to keep a dog as a companion animal, as there was no evidence that the dog was necessary to alleviate the tenant’s disability. The Court found that the landlord was within their rights to enforce the no-pets clause in the lease agreement and evict the tenant for failing to comply.

It’s important to note that each case is decided based on its own unique facts and circumstances, so the outcome of your situation will depend on the specific details of your case. It’s recommended that you consult with a lawyer to discuss your options and ensure that you are acting within your legal rights.

Prompt: It would be nice if you could provide the original legal terms word for word!

Answer: Certainly! Here are the relevant legal provisions in the Quebec Civil Code and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, word for word:

Quebec Civil Code: Article 1854 – “The lessee has a right to the peaceful enjoyment of the leased property.”

Quebec Civil Code: Article 1974 – “The lessor may not, except in cases provided for by law and not arising out of the use of the dwelling, resiliate the lease on the ground of the failure of the lessee to comply with the obligation imposed upon him by the lease, unless the failure is serious and the lessee has not remedied it within the time granted to him for that purpose.”

Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: Section 10 – “Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap. Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.”

I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any further questions.

b) Experiment on JusticeBot (Date: March 17, 2023)

JusticeBot: Welcome to JusticeBot!

Answer: I understand.

JusticeBot: Are you an owner or a tenant?

Answer: Owner

JusticeBot: How can I help you today?

Answer: Other

Information page of JusticeBot:

Not yet covered

Unfortunately, your legal situation is not yet covered by JusticeBot. It is a prototype and the factual situations and legal issues dealt with by the JusticeBot are limited.

Questionnaire

Please help us improve the JusticeBot by describing your situation below. We will endeavor to include your situation in the JusticeBot as soon as possible. Unfortunately, JusticeBot does not provide personalized advice. Please contact a legal professional or the Housing Administrative Tribunal for assistance.

^[1] ChatGPT is a Large Language Model (LLM) application developed by OpenAI.

^[2] For example, ChatPDF (chatpdf.com) allows you ask for information in PDF documents, ChatExcel (chatexcel.com) allows you use nature language adjust excel files, bilingual book maker (https://github.com/yihong0618/bilingual_book_maker) allows you translated whole book in a short time, Mem (mem.ai) allows you to get a quick briefing on relevant material, AI Dungeon (play.aidungeon.io) allows you play allows you to play infinite episodes of games generated by the AI.

^[3] The new Bing (https://www.bing.com/) integrated with the ChatGPT model is now available.

^[4] Michael James Bommarito & Daniel Martin Katz, GPT Takes the Bar Exam (Rochester, NY, 2022).

^[5] “GPT-4”, online: <https://openai.com/research/gpt-4>; Daniel Martin Katz et al, GPT-4 Passes the Bar Exam (Rochester, NY, 2023).

^[6] Jonathan H Choi et al, ChatGPT Goes to Law School (Rochester, NY, 2023) at 11.

^[7] Andrew M Perlman, The Implications of ChatGPT for Legal Services and Society (Rochester, NY, 2022) at 7–11.

^[8] Biyang Guo et al, How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection (arXiv, 2023) arXiv:2301.07597 [cs].

^[9] Ibid at 5.

^[10] Ibid at 6.

^[11] Baidu Baike is a semi-regulated Chinese-language collaborative online encyclopedia owned by the Chinese technology company Baidu. It’s considered to be the Chinese version of Wikipedia.

^[12] Even if we assume that Wikipedia and Baidubaike’s answers are based on the goodness of people, due to the specialized nature of the legal field, these answers may not be accurate or the information may be outdated. Beth Simone Noveck, “Wikipedia and the Future of Legal Education Legal Education in the Twenty-First Century” (2007) 57:1 J Legal Educ 3–9 at 4.

^[13] For example, responses such as “Hello! The situation varies from place to place, if you need further help, please call us.” are quite common.

^[14] Amanda Askell et al, “A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment” (2021), online: <https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00861v3>; Guo et al, supra note 8.

^[15] R. v. Jennings, 2018 ONCA 260 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hr359>, retrieved on 2023-03-15

^[16] Timo Schick et al, Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools (arXiv, 2023) arXiv:2302.04761 [cs] Try Toolformer Zero demo here: github.com/minosvasilias/toolformer-zero.

This content has been updated on 12/14/2023 at 11 h 17 min.