Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Lozano González 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 →

Lozano González v. Roberge

Court
Housing Administrative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2025-05-01
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Legal Norm | False translation of Articles 1960 and 1962 from the Code civil du Québec.

Details

The landlord sought to repossess a rental property, claiming the lease renewal was suspended based on a misinterpretation of Quebec's civil code articles. He used ChatGPT to translate these articles, which resulted in a completely different meaning. The Tribunal found the repossession request invalid as it was based on a date prior to the lease's end. The Tribunal rejected the claim of abuse, accepting the landlord's sincere belief in his misinterpretation, influenced by AI translation, and noted his language barrier and residence in Mexico. The Tribunal advised the landlord to seek reliable legal advice in the future.

Sanction teardown · Housing Administrative Tribunal, Canada · 2025-05-01

Lozano González v. Roberge

What happened

In Housing Administrative Tribunal, Canada, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • False Quotes (Legal Norm)
    False translation of Articles 1960 and 1962 from the Code civil du Québec.

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. 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

Not specified in source record.

Additional detail

The landlord sought to repossess a rental property, claiming the lease renewal was suspended based on a misinterpretation of Quebec's civil code articles. He used ChatGPT to translate these articles, which resulted in a completely different meaning. The Tribunal found the repossession request invalid as it was based on a date prior to the lease's end. The Tribunal rejected the claim of abuse, accepting the landlord's sincere belief in his misinterpretation, influenced by AI translation, and noted his language barrier and residence in Mexico. The Tribunal advised the landlord to seek reliable legal advice in the future.

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/596/Lozano_Gonz%C3%A1lez_c._Roberge_Canada_1_May_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/596/Lozano_Gonz%C3%A1lez_c._Roberge_Canada_1_May_2025.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