Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Abraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Abraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2026-06-03
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Adverse Costs Order
Monetary penalty
200 CAD

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions relied on numerous case citations that the Court found did not exist; the Court attributed these fabricated citations to the applicant's undeclared use of AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case citation cited as support for a 15-19 day timeline; Court found no decision corresponding to the citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Tesfay v Canada (C&I), 2016 FC 1300' but the neutral citation 2016 FC 1300 corresponds to Alhezma v Canada; Court found the citation unreliable/misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Mohammadian v Canada (C&I), 2017 FC 1021' but 2017 FC 1021 corresponds to Boily v Canada; Court treated this as a mis-citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Khan v Canada (C&I), 2011 FC 130' but 2011 FC 130 corresponds to Public Mobile Inc v Canada (Attorney General); Court found the citation did not support Applicant's argument.

Sanction teardown · Federal Court, Canada · 2026-06-03

Abraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

What happened

In Federal Court, Canada, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant's submissions relied on numerous case citations that the Court found did not exist; the Court attributed these fabricated citations to the applicant's undeclared use of AI.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant relied on a non-existent case citation cited as support for a 15-19 day timeline; Court found no decision corresponding to the citation.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Applicant cited 'Tesfay v Canada (C&I), 2016 FC 1300' but the neutral citation 2016 FC 1300 corresponds to Alhezma v Canada; Court found the citation unreliable/misrepresented.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Applicant cited 'Mohammadian v Canada (C&I), 2017 FC 1021' but 2017 FC 1021 corresponds to Boily v Canada; Court treated this as a mis-citation.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Applicant cited 'Khan v Canada (C&I), 2011 FC 130' but 2011 FC 130 corresponds to Public Mobile Inc v Canada (Attorney General); Court found the citation did not support Applicant's argument.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Adverse Costs Order (monetary penalty: 200 CAD.)

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2537/Okogun-v.-Canada-Citizenship-and-Immigration-2026-FC-723_1.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2537/Okogun-v.-Canada-Citizenship-and-Immigration-2026-FC-723_1.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template