Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0LU8J57Generated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Azar c. Université de Montréal

Quebec CA · Nov 13, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
Quebec CA
Record ID
azar-c-université-de-montréal-2025-11-13
Observed outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with legal costs.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's request for leave to appeal. The court explicitly noted that the applicant relied on non-existent case law, which the respondent attributed to AI hallucinations, and that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for these citations.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on numerous case-law authorities that the Respondent demonstrated do not exist; Respondent characterized them as likely AI-generated hallucinations and the court noted the applicant gave no explanation.

Why it matters now

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Quebec CA, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Administrative
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Application for leave to appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing safeguard measures.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The respondent suggested the non-existent cases were the result of AI hallucinations.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.