Blinds to Go Inc. c. Blachley
Quebec SC · Aug 11, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Quebec SC
- Record ID
- blinds-to-go-inc-c-blachley-2025-08-11
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the plaintiffs' application for damages and a permanent injunction, dismissed the defendant's cross-application, and ordered the defendant to pay $101,302.50 CAD plus interest and indemnity.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$101,303
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Courts now spot hallucinations by the tell of 'cited but not filed' — require the actual judgment copy for every authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$101,303
- Procedural posture
- Final judgment on the merits following a trial held from March 31 to April 9, 2025, and subsequent post-trial motions.
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 judge suspected the references were the product of artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.