previous post on Shofetim, there is a good probability that Ibn Ezra dismissed the existence of sheidim, demons. This based on his use of the word האומרים, such that it is only their claim that they consult demons. And earlier, in a post about a pasuk in Acharei Mot, because Ibn Ezra describes them as thinking demons have power (rather than it being something that is true) and because those who see them are crazy people. Note that there is a possibly good counter-argument in terms of Ibn Ezra's belief. It is often difficult to determine Ibn Ezra's beliefs.
Rabbi Moshe Taku, though, thought that Ibn Ezra clearly asserted that demons do not exist. But he asserts something else as well. To cite from Jewish Magic and Superstition, by Joshua Trachtenberg,
If we are to believe Moses of Tachau,3 Ibn Ezra paid dearly for
his hardihood in denying the existence of demons. "Ibn Ezra wrote in his book," he says, "'Of a surety there are no demons in the world!' .Verily he erred in this matter, for they were ever at his side . . . and indeed they proved their existence to at him. I have heard from the people of Iglant [England?], where he died, that once when he was travelling through a forest he came upon a large band of black dogs who glared at him balefully; undoubtedly these were demons. When he had finally passed through their midst he fell seriously ill, and eventually he died of that illness." This incident was apparently evidence enough for R. Moses, though we may question whether, if it occurred, it sufficed to convince the doughty Ibn Ezra.
So too in the book Prophetic inspiration after the prophets:
As well as in the JQR, volume 6.
The different citations give different flavors. Did he deny their existence? Did he willfully make use of them? Was it accidental.
It is just so difficult for rationalists! After their death, when they can no longer defend themselves, people can deliberately or accidentally make up personal stories that prove the opposite of their positions. If Ibn Ezra knowingly consulted with demons, he makes no mention of this in his commentary which denies their existence. And I suppose that if he was killed after an encounter with hell-hounds, he would not have lived long enough to print a retraction of his views.
For me, this has the flavor of an urban legend, or else a story with some basis but embellished to prove a point. And it is specifically the non-rationalists who would take that story and accept it, uncritically, as truth.