HomeCasesBalogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382

ONCAT · Dec 5, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a non-existent case to support that the Tribunal had jurisdiction; Tribunal found the case does not exist and characterized it as an AI hallucination.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a non-existent case to support that the Tribunal had jurisdiction; Tribunal found the case does not exist and characterized it as an AI hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a second non-existent case to support jurisdictional arguments; Tribunal determined this citation was fabricated by AI and did not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a third non-existent case; Tribunal characterized the citation as an AI-generated hallucination and refused to treat it as authoritative.
Why it matters now: Ontario condo tribunals openly label AI-hallucinated jurisdictional cites and refuse to consider them.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Ontario condo tribunals openly label AI-hallucinated jurisdictional cites and refuse to consider them.

Record details

CourtONCAT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 5, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a non-existent case to support that the Tribunal had jurisdiction; Tribunal found the case does not exist and characterized it as an AI hallucination.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a second non-existent case to support jurisdictional arguments; Tribunal determined this citation was fabricated by AI and did not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a third non-existent case; Tribunal characterized the citation as an AI-generated hallucination and refused to treat it as authoritative.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a non-existent case to support that the Tribunal had jurisdiction; Tribunal found the case does not exist and characterized it as an AI hallucination.
Why does Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382 matter for legal AI risk?: Ontario condo tribunals openly label AI-hallucinated jurisdictional cites and refuse to consider them.
What does the public record establish about Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382?: 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.
Which source supports this Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382 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.

Vasina v. York Condominium Corporation No. 486ONCAT · Jan 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532ONCAT · Jul 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Janssen v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1851ONCAT · Oct 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Salah v. Peel Condominium CorporationONCAT · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations 14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Ontario condo tribunals openly label AI-hallucinated jurisdictional cites and refuse to consider them.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a second non-existent case to support jurisdictional arguments; Tribunal determined this citation was fabricated by AI and did not exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's response cited a third non-existent case; Tribunal characterized the citation as an AI-generated hallucination and refused to treat it as authoritative.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382?

Why does Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382 matter for legal AI risk?

Ontario condo tribunals openly label AI-hallucinated jurisdictional cites and refuse to consider them.

What does the public record establish about Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382?

Which source supports this Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382 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.