Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. (Costs Endorsement)
ON SCSM · Jan 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Sandler v. Goldstein, 2007 ONCA 153' as authority on commissions; no such case exists at that citation (2007 ONCA 153 is Re DeFilippis). Outcome: The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.. The paralegal for Ivanov filed written submissions citing multiple non-existent or mis-cited cases and a non-existent statutory section, conduct the Court identified as having all the hallmarks of AI-generated "hallucinations." The Court gave the paralegal an opportunity to show cause and to provide source material but she failed to do so. Relying on the Chief Justice's AI Practice Direction and applicable Small Claims rules, the Court concluded the conduct was misleading and imposed a $2,000 personal penalty on the paralegal under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act. in ON SCSM. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Sandler v. Goldstein, 2007 ONCA 153' as authority on commissions; no such case exists at that citation (2007 ONCA 153 is Re DeFilippis). Outcome: The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.. The paralegal for Ivanov filed written submissions citing multiple non-existent or mis-cited cases and a non-existent statutory section, conduct the Court identified as having all the hallmarks of AI-generated "hallucinations." The Court gave the paralegal an opportunity to show cause and to provide source material but she failed to do so. Relying on the Chief Justice's AI Practice Direction and applicable Small Claims rules, the Court concluded the conduct was misleading and imposed a $2,000 personal penalty on the paralegal under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act. in ON SCSM. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Sandler v. Goldstein, 2007 ONCA 153' as authority on commissions; no such case exists at that citation (2007 ONCA 153 is Re DeFilippis).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Sutton Group Admiral Realty Inc. v. Taborovska, 2021 ONSC 1747' for proposition about BRA; the court found 2021 ONSC 1747 is Rogers Estate v Rogers and the Taborovska matters exist at different citations (2021 ONSC 2837 and 5054).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Re/Max Realtron Realty Inc. v. Hogue, 2003 CanLII 52184' as holding requirement of a signed agreement for commission; the cited identifier corresponds to an unrelated case and no matching Re/Max Realtron v Hogue at that citation was found.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd. v. 2161792 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONSC 4785' for commission law; 2020 ONSC 4785 is actually Kinsella v. Mills and no case by that Royal LePage name was located at that citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc. v. Klundert, 2014 ONSC 7395' for damages for breach of BRA; no case exists at that citation nor under that name was located.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Westmerc Commercial Properties Ltd. v. MacDonald, 1998 CanLII 14941' for veil-piercing; the cited identifier corresponds to R. v. Alibhai and no Westmerc v. MacDonald was found at that citation.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Asserted 'section 13' of the Statute of Frauds, RSO 1990, c. S.19 requires written signed commission agreements; no Section 13 exists in the current Statute and the statutory assertion was incorrect.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. (Costs Endorsement)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Sandler v. Goldstein, 2007 ONCA 153' as authority on commissions; no such case exists at that citation (2007 ONCA 153 is Re DeFilippis). Outcome: The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.. The paralegal for Ivanov filed written submissions citing multiple non-existent or mis-cited cases and a non-existent statutory section, conduct the Court identified as having all the hallmarks of AI-generated "hallucinations." The Court gave the paralegal an opportunity to show cause and to provide source material but she failed to do so. Relying on the Chief Justice's AI Practice Direction and applicable Small Claims rules, the Court concluded the conduct was misleading and imposed a $2,000 personal penalty on the paralegal under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act.
- Why does Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. (Costs Endorsement) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with The court found the submissions contained AI-like hallucinations and ordered the paralegal Ms. Derya Vural to personally pay $2,000 to opposing counsel in trust under Rule 19.06 and s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act. in ON SCSM. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. (Costs Endorsement)?
- 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 Andrey Ivanov & Hometrade Realty Inc. Brokerage v. Uri Kiselman & Viva Solar Inc. (Costs Endorsement) 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.