Abraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Federal Court · Jun 3, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court
- Record ID
- abraham-okogun-v-the-minister-of-citizenship-and-immigration-2026-06-03
- Observed outcome
- The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court noted that costs were not ordered in this specific matter because they had already been ordered in a related contemporaneous case (Okogun No. 1) for the same conduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Federal Court of Canada dismissed the applicant's judicial review application. The Court identified that the pro se applicant submitted fabricated and misattributed case law, which the judge explicitly attributed to the undeclared use of artificial intelligence. No additional monetary sanction was imposed in this specific case because costs were already ordered in a related contemporaneous proceeding.
The Court found the applicant's submissions contained non-existent or misattributed case law, which the judge determined was a direct result of the applicant's undeclared use of artificial intelligence in preparing his materials.
This case illustrates the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of pro se filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It highlights the risk of adverse costs and judicial rejection when litigants fail to verify the existence and accuracy of cited legal authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Case Law
- Undeclared Use Of AI
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision, heard by the Federal Court of Canada.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The Court attributed the fabricated citations to the applicant's undeclared use of artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Independently verify the existence and neutral citation of every case law authority cited in court filings.
- Ensure that all cited authorities accurately support the specific legal propositions for which they are presented.
- Maintain a record of the verification process for all legal research and citations included in submissions.
- Disclose the use of generative AI tools in accordance with court-specific practice directions or ethical obligations.