Decision No. 353/24R
WSIAT · Apr 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- WSIAT
- Record ID
- decision-no-353-24r-2026-04-07
- Observed outcome
- Reconsideration request denied; representative admonished for submitting fabricated authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Reconsideration request of a prior WSIAT decision (Decision No. 353/24) denied by the Vice-Chair.
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 Tribunal noted the representative may have used generative AI like ChatGPT.
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
- Independently verify the existence and citation of every legal authority before filing.
- Implement mandatory human review and verification protocols for all AI-assisted research.
- Ensure all cited statutes and regulations are cross-referenced against official legislative databases.
- Review the WSIAT Code of Conduct regarding the duty of honest representation.