Conrado Poblete v Ontario Public Service Employees Union
ON LRB · Jun 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- ON LRB
- Record ID
- conrado-poblete-v-ontario-public-service-employees-union-2026-06-11
- Observed outcome
- Application dismissed; applicant remains barred from filing future applications against the union or employer without leave of the Board.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Bar Referral
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board for failure to comply with prior filing restrictions.
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 Board identified the filings as containing unintelligible AI-generated material.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- 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.