Decision No. 353/24R
WSIAT · Apr 7, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The WSIAT denied a reconsideration request after the worker's representative submitted fabricated case law and non-existent statutory references. The Tribunal admonished the representative for failing to verify the existence of cited authorities, noting that such conduct violates the WSIAT Code of Conduct and that the Tribunal is not obligated to address arguments based on non-existent legal sources.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal reasoned that it cannot consider non-existent cases or statutes. It held that representatives have a duty to represent the law honestly, ensure human review of AI-generated materials, and verify all authorities before submission. The Tribunal concluded that arguments based on fabricated sources do not meet the threshold for reconsideration and need not be addressed.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the consequences of submitting AI-generated hallucinations in administrative tribunals. It reinforces the professional duty of representatives to verify all legal authorities and confirms that tribunals may disregard arguments based on non-existent law.
Why this matter is tracked
In a reconsideration request before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), the worker's representative submitted arguments supported by fabricated case law and non-existent legal provisions. Specifically, the representative cited 'Robert v. WSIAT' and 'Curtis v. WSIAT' as appellate authorities and referenced a non-existent 'section 5.5' of the Human Rights Code. The Vice-Chair determined these citations were likely generated by AI and did not exist, noting that the representative failed to uphold duties of honest representation under the WSIAT Code of Conduct. The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no fundamental error of law or process, and admonished the representative for submitting non-existent authorities, emphasizing the professional obligation to verify all research and AI-generated content.
This case illustrates the consequences of submitting AI-generated hallucinations in administrative tribunals. It reinforces the professional duty of representatives to verify all legal authorities and confirms that tribunals may disregard arguments based on non-existent law.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Tribunal noted the representative may have used generative AI like ChatGPT.
Reconsideration request of a prior WSIAT decision (Decision No. 353/24) denied by the Vice-Chair.
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?
- The WSIAT denied a reconsideration request after the worker's representative submitted fabricated case law and non-existent statutory references. The Tribunal admonished the representative for failing to verify the existence of cited authorities, noting that such conduct violates the WSIAT Code of Conduct and that the Tribunal is not obligated to address arguments based on non-existent legal sources.
- Why does Decision No. 353/24R matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the consequences of submitting AI-generated hallucinations in administrative tribunals. It reinforces the professional duty of representatives to verify all legal authorities and confirms that tribunals may disregard arguments based on non-existent law.
- 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.