What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Dhanjal v. Air Canada, 2016 HRTO 1301' as HRTO authority; Tribunal located Dhanjal as a 1996 CHRT decision (CanLII 2385) and not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattribution of the source. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Sokoloff v. Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 539' as an HRTO decision and for the proposition that limitation periods do not run while discrimination continues; Tribunal found no such HRTO decision and the citation does not exist on CanLII. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2017 HRTO 211' as Tribunal authority; Tribunal located a Turner decision but as 2020 CHRT 1 (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal), not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattributed precedent.

Sanction teardown · Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Canada · 2025-11-21

Walker v. Collingwood General and Marine Hospital

What happened

In Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 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:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

Applicant cited 'Dhanjal v. Air Canada, 2016 HRTO 1301' as HRTO authority; Tribunal located Dhanjal as a 1996 CHRT decision (CanLII 2385) and not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattribution of the source.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Applicant cited 'Sokoloff v. Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 539' as an HRTO decision and for the proposition that limitation periods do not run while discrimination continues; Tribunal found no such HRTO decision and the citation does not exist on CanLII.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Applicant cited 'Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2017 HRTO 211' as Tribunal authority; Tribunal located a Turner decision but as 2020 CHRT 1 (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal), not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattributed precedent.

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

Request for Reconsideration denied

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/1082/Walker_v._Collinwood_Canada_21_November_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

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 checker Back 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 — $49 Sanctions-motion template