2026 CanLII 107034 (CA VRAB)
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Courtready; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Veterans Review and Appeal Board · Apr 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The Panel searched the cited journal and could not locate the purported systematic review or find supportive scientific literature corresponding to the citation. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner used AI to generate the medical opinion and its references without verifying them. It determined that the cited Veterans Affairs Canada eye-condition eligibility guideline did not exist and that the two purported journal articles could not be located in the cited journals or elsewhere. The Panel concluded that the opinion’s substantive medical conclusions also appeared to be AI-generated and false, rendering the opinion unreliable. Because it was the only evidence supporting a service relationship, the Panel denied entitlement for right-eye keratoconus.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and administrative and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Veterans Review and Appeal Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The Panel searched the cited journal and could not locate the purported systematic review or find supportive scientific literature corresponding to the citation. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner used AI to generate the medical opinion and its references without verifying them. It determined that the cited Veterans Affairs Canada eye-condition eligibility guideline did not exist and that the two purported journal articles could not be located in the cited journals or elsewhere. The Panel concluded that the opinion’s substantive medical conclusions also appeared to be AI-generated and false, rendering the opinion unreliable. Because it was the only evidence supporting a service relationship, the Panel denied entitlement for right-eye keratoconus.
This matter connects fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Veterans Review and Appeal Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The Panel searched the cited journal and could not locate the purported systematic review or find supportive scientific literature corresponding to the citation.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The cited Veterans Affairs Canada entitlement guideline did not exist. The Panel characterized it as an AI-hallucinated government policy and found that it appeared designed to support the opinion.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The Panel searched the cited journal by issue, date, page number, author, and article title and could not locate the article in the journal or elsewhere.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in 2026 CanLII 107034 (CA VRAB)?
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The Panel searched the cited journal and could not locate the purported systematic review or find supportive scientific literature corresponding to the citation. The Panel found that the Nurse Practitioner used AI to generate the medical opinion and its references without verifying them. It determined that the cited Veterans Affairs Canada eye-condition eligibility guideline did not exist and that the two purported journal articles could not be located in the cited journals or elsewhere. The Panel concluded that the opinion’s substantive medical conclusions also appeared to be AI-generated and false, rendering the opinion unreliable. Because it was the only evidence supporting a service relationship, the Panel denied entitlement for right-eye keratoconus.
- Why does 2026 CanLII 107034 (CA VRAB) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Veterans Review and Appeal Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about 2026 CanLII 107034 (CA VRAB)?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this 2026 CanLII 107034 (CA VRAB) summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.