Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union
ON LRB · Jun 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and reaffirmed a prior order barring the applicant from filing future applications against the named union and employer without first obtaining leave of the Board, citing the applicant's history of abusive, unintelligible, and AI-generated filings.
- Why the court cared
- The Board reasoned that the application repeated allegations from prior dismissed cases and failed to comply with the specific leave-to-file requirements established in a December 2025 Board decision intended to curb the applicant's abuse of process.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates how tribunals manage repetitive, abusive litigation involving AI-generated content. It highlights the use of 'leave-to-file' orders as a procedural control to prevent the waste of judicial resources caused by unintelligible or fabricated submissions.
Why this matter is tracked
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed an application filed by Conrado Poblete against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The applicant submitted 13 initial attachments and numerous subsequent filings containing unintelligible, AI-generated excerpts of legislation, web pages, and correspondence that failed to plead material facts. The Board noted a history of repetitive, abusive filings by the applicant against the same parties. Citing a prior December 2025 decision that imposed a restriction on the applicant's ability to file further applications without leave, the Board dismissed the current application for failing to comply with these requirements. The Board reiterated that the applicant is barred from filing future applications against the union or employer without prior leave of the Board.
This case illustrates how tribunals manage repetitive, abusive litigation involving AI-generated content. It highlights the use of 'leave-to-file' orders as a procedural control to prevent the waste of judicial resources caused by unintelligible or fabricated submissions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Board identified the filings as containing unintelligible AI-generated material.
Application dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board for failure to comply with prior filing restrictions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant filed 13+ attachments and multiple subsequent filings containing unintelligible AI-generated excerpts (legislation, web pages, emails, correspondence) that did not properly plead facts; the Board treated these as fabricated/AI-generated submissions and dismissed the application.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union?
- The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and reaffirmed a prior order barring the applicant from filing future applications against the named union and employer without first obtaining leave of the Board, citing the applicant's history of abusive, unintelligible, and AI-generated filings.
- Why does Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates how tribunals manage repetitive, abusive litigation involving AI-generated content. It highlights the use of 'leave-to-file' orders as a procedural control to prevent the waste of judicial resources caused by unintelligible or fabricated submissions.
- What does the public record establish about Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union?
- 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 Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union 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.