Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley
Quebec SC · Aug 11, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Quebec Superior Court identified that a pro se litigant, David Blachley, submitted fabricated legal citations in his written arguments. The presiding judge suspected these non-existent cases were generated by artificial intelligence, noting that the litigant failed to provide the actual decisions to the court for verification.
- Why the court cared
- The court observed that the defendant's written submissions contained references to cases that were not filed and did not appear to exist, leading the judge to conclude they were likely the result of AI-generated hallucinations.
- Why it matters now
- Courts now spot hallucinations by the tell of 'cited but not filed' — require the actual judgment copy for every authority.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute between Blinds to Go Inc. and pro se litigant David Blachley, the Quebec Superior Court addressed claims regarding a licensing agreement for window shutter technology. During the proceedings, Blachley submitted written arguments containing citations to case law that he failed to provide to the court. Upon review, the presiding judge, Lukasz Granosik, J.S.C., determined that several of these cited decisions did not exist. The court explicitly noted its suspicion that these references were the product of artificial intelligence 'hallucinations' and lacked any basis in law. The court ultimately dismissed Blachley's cross-application and granted the plaintiffs' application for damages and a permanent injunction, finding that Blachley had violated the licensing agreement and previous court orders.
Courts now spot hallucinations by the tell of 'cited but not filed' — require the actual judgment copy for every authority.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The judge suspected the references were the product of artificial intelligence.
Final judgment on the merits following a trial held from March 31 to April 9, 2025, and subsequent post-trial motions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted Blachley referenced this decision but did not file it; the judge observed it appears not to exist and suspected AI 'hallucination'.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted Blachley referenced this decision but did not file it; the judge observed it appears not to exist and suspected AI 'hallucination'.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted Blachley referenced this decision but did not file it; the judge observed it appears not to exist and suspected AI 'hallucination'.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted Blachley referenced this decision but did not file it; the judge observed it appears not to exist and suspected AI 'hallucination'.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley?
- The Quebec Superior Court identified that a pro se litigant, David Blachley, submitted fabricated legal citations in his written arguments. The presiding judge suspected these non-existent cases were generated by artificial intelligence, noting that the litigant failed to provide the actual decisions to the court for verification.
- Why does Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley matter for legal AI risk?
- Courts now spot hallucinations by the tell of 'cited but not filed' — require the actual judgment copy for every authority.
- What does the public record establish about Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley?
- 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 Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley 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.