CYFSA Decision 32
ON IPC · Aug 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- ON IPC
- Record ID
- cyfsa-decision-32-2025-08-21
- Observed outcome
- The IPC adjudicator upheld the CAS's refusal to correct the records and dismissed the complaint.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The IPC adjudicator dismissed the complaint, ruling that the disputed records were professional opinions or observations made in good faith, which are exempt from correction under section 315(10)(b) of the CYFSA. The adjudicator disregarded the complainant's AI-generated citations due to their fabrication and misrepresentation.
The adjudicator determined that the disputed records were professional opinions or observations made in good faith, thus qualifying for the section 315(10)(b) exception to the duty to correct. The adjudicator further noted that the complainant's AI-generated citations were irrelevant and unreliable, and therefore excluded them from consideration.
This case illustrates the risks of using AI in pro se litigation, specifically the submission of fabricated and misrepresented legal authorities. It highlights how adjudicators identify and disregard AI-generated hallucinations while focusing on the underlying statutory merits.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Case Law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Administrative adjudication by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) following an unsuccessful mediation process.
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 complainant acknowledged using AI assistance for drafting representations.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.