HomeCasesDecision No. 353/24R

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Decision No. 353/24R

WSIAT · Apr 7, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited 'Robert v. WSIAT' as an Ontario appellate authority; Tribunal found no record of the decision and determined it does not appear to exist, so it could not be considered. Outcome: Admonishment.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Admonishment; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in WSIAT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in WSIAT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtWSIAT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateApr 7, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAdmonishment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Admonishment

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited 'Robert v. WSIAT' as an Ontario appellate authority; Tribunal found no record of the decision and determined it does not appear to exist, so it could not be considered.
Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited 'Curtis v. WSIAT' purportedly as an appellate authority; Tribunal found the citation incomplete and the decision does not appear to exist and therefore could not be relied upon.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Representative referenced a 'section 5.5' under the HRTO/HRC; Tribunal reviewed the Human Rights Code and found no such section exists and therefore could not consider the reference.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Decision No. 353/24R?: Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited 'Robert v. WSIAT' as an Ontario appellate authority; Tribunal found no record of the decision and determined it does not appear to exist, so it could not be considered. Outcome: Admonishment.
Why does Decision No. 353/24R matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in WSIAT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Decision No. 353/24R?: 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 Decision No. 353/24R 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.

Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025T.S.X. Galicia · Jul 7, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Djybril Voukeng Djatsa v. Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 4, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Representative cited 'Curtis v. WSIAT' purportedly as an appellate authority; Tribunal found the citation incomplete and the decision does not appear to exist and therefore could not be relied upon.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Representative referenced a 'section 5.5' under the HRTO/HRC; Tribunal reviewed the Human Rights Code and found no such section exists and therefore could not consider the reference.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Decision No. 353/24R?

Why does Decision No. 353/24R matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Decision No. 353/24R?

Which source supports this Decision No. 353/24R 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.