Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada
Federal Court · Jan 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court
- Record ID
- alexandra-philomena-brigid-roy-v-attorney-general-of-canada-2026-01-09
- Observed outcome
- The application for judicial review was granted on the basis that the administrative decision-maker failed to consider psychological evidence, independent of the AI-related procedural issue.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Federal Court disregarded the Applicant's AI-generated case citations after she admitted to using AI to draft her memorandum without disclosure. The Court subsequently granted the application for judicial review based on the administrative decision-maker's failure to consider relevant psychological evidence, rather than the AI-related conduct.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's memorandum contained references to jurisprudence that did not exist; the Respondent flagged the issue and the Court disregarded the unreliable case citations.
Federal Court now routinely disregards unreliable citations—attack opponent's authorities as a threshold matter.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judicial review of a Veterans Affairs Canada decision denying reimbursement for medical procedures.
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 Applicant confirmed AI use but the specific tool was not named.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.