Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway
Federal Court · Jan 19, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Court
- Record ID
- amit-arora-v-canadian-national-railway-2026-01-19
- Observed outcome
- The Court dismissed the applicant's motion for leave to file additional evidence, awarded costs to the respondent, and issued a formal admonishment regarding the applicant's failure to verify AI-generated content and comply with AI disclosure requirements.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court admonished the pro se litigant for submitting filings containing hallucinated case law and false legal propositions, which the Court attributed to the undeclared and unverified use of generative AI. The Court emphasized that litigants must comply with practice directions requiring AI disclosure and human verification of all AI-generated content to avoid misleading the Court and wasting judicial resources.
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a nonexistent case 'Manitoba v. CHRC, 2016 FC 836' as authority for a proposition about reply affidavits; Court found no such case at that citation and that the paragraphs cited did not support the proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'CP Rail v. Canada (AG), 2015 FC 1348' which the Court determined does not exist and is a hallucinated authority. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Asserted the legal proposition that 'reply affidavits served within the Rule 312(1) window do not require leave'—the Court found this proposition to be false and misstates the law.
Federal courts now catch hallucinated citations and misstated rules—build checklists that flag both fake cites and fake legal propositions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$1,000
- Procedural posture
- The matter arose during a motion for leave to file additional affidavit evidence under Rule 312 of the Federal Courts Rules, where the Court reviewed the applicant's written representations in reply.
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 errors to the use of generative AI.
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.