The Increasing Complexity of Strata Management Part 3 – “AI Slop” and the Rise of Made-Up Arguments in Strata Disputes 

As Strata Councils are aware, there has always been a healthy (and sometimes not-so-healthy) amount of correspondence from Owners who disagree with a Council decision. These communications often relate to bylaw enforcement, common property maintenance, or other matters where the Council is required to make decisions on behalf of all Owners. Needless to say, Owners often disagree with the decisions of their elected Council in the same way citizens disagree with decisions made by higher levels of government. 

Over the years, we’ve seen a wide range of approaches to those objections—from brief and respectful notes requesting clarification, to lengthier and more strongly worded appeals. What’s new, and increasingly common, are multi-page letters or emails citing legal cases, quoting legislation, and making seemingly persuasive arguments that, upon closer inspection, don’t hold up to scrutiny. 

In recent months, we’ve begun to notice that many of these letters appear to have something in common: they were likely written with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Sometimes, but not always, there are some very obvious giveaways – the overuse of “em dashes”, a tone that doesn’t at all suit the sender (sometimes we have corresponded with individuals before and learned how they write, only to be met with an entirely different writing style) and more. 

While AI can be a useful resource when used appropriately, it can also produce text that looks authoritative but includes content that is inaccurate, misleading, or in some cases, completely fabricated. The term commonly used for this phenomenon is “hallucination.” In the context of strata disputes, it might look like: 

• Legal decisions being cited that don’t actually exist; 

• Sections of the Strata Property Act, Regulations and other pieces of legislation being quoted with wording that doesn’t actually exist; 

• Misinterpretations of governing legislation, case law, or procedural rules. 

These AI-generated arguments are often framed in a way that appears legitimate and can be very convincing, especially to laypeople without a technical background in the Strata Property Act or other relevant pieces of legislation. These letters may span several pages, include footnotes, and use formal legal language making them challenging to decipher. In some cases, the content is a blend of real and fabricated information, which can make the errors especially difficult to identify—particularly for a layperson. 

For Strata Managers and Council members, reviewing these communications is time-consuming and is only on an upward slope. Verifying citations, cross-referencing legislation, and responding thoughtfully to what is ultimately incorrect information can take hours. In some instances, legal counsel must be retained to assist in preparing a reply, especially where the tone of the letter suggests the matter may escalate or where precedent could be set by the response.   

We appreciate that Owners want to advocate for their interests, and it’s entirely appropriate for them to ask questions or disagree with a decision. It’s also appropriate for people to use whatever resources they can, including AI, to help them with guidance. But as the use of generative AI becomes more widespread, we’re seeing an increase in letters that purport to offer a legal rebuttal that are based on unsound or entirely false premises. In effect, these communications are requiring Strata Councils—and their agents—to do significantly more work to identify and correct information that was never accurate to begin with. 

This is part of a broader trend: the role of a Strata Manager has grown increasingly complex as we’ve written about in Part 1 and Part 2 of our series of articles on the subject. We are expected to interpret legislation, assist with insurance claims, manage building staff, coordinate with legal counsel, and now—review and respond to AI-generated letters that sometimes read like authoritative legal opinions, but contain fabricated case law and non-existent statutes. 

For Council members, we encourage the following approach: 

• Be cautious when reviewing long letters filled with legal references. If a case name or statute doesn’t sound familiar, there’s a chance it may not exist. 

• Avoid responding immediately. If the content of the letter seems overly complex or questionable, speak with your Strata Manager about next steps. 

• Check citations. AI may provide actual citations to the sections of legislation it is quoting- even though that citation directly contradicts the claim (hence, “hallucination”).  Sometimes confirming that the AI has made things up is as simple as cross referencing the citation with the actual document being referred to. 

• Understand that legal review may be necessary. In cases where the communication is particularly detailed or appears to threaten legal action, the best course may be to obtain a legal opinion.  Most insurance programs also offer some forms of free legal advice depending on the circumstances which can be engaged to assist. 

We want to be clear: we are not dismissing the concerns raised by Owners, and we welcome respectful engagement on difficult topics. But as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, it’s important to distinguish between genuine issues and arguments that have been built on misinformation. 

In short, not everything that looks authoritative is accurate—and not everything that appears to be a legal argument is grounded in law. 

As always, if you receive correspondence that raises concerns or is difficult to decipher, please reach out to your Property Manager. We’re here to help, and when necessary, we will coordinate with legal counsel to ensure that your Council is responding appropriately and in the best interests of the Strata Corporation.