HomeCasesDhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532

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

Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532

ONCAT · Jul 9, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Tribunals now ignore arguments built on fabricated citations entirely; hallucinated cases cost the filer the issue, not just credibility.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Operational lesson

Tribunals now ignore arguments built on fabricated citations entirely; hallucinated cases cost the filer the issue, not just credibility.

Record details

CourtONCAT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 9, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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 | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'McKnight v. York Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2020 ONCAT 40'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Rahman v. PSCC 779, 2021 ONCAT 51' and relied on a suggested holding; Tribunal noted the cited number/citation was incorrect and that, even if the Applicant meant Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2021 ONCAT 13, its facts and holding do not support the Applicant's proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.
Why does Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532 matter for legal AI risk?: Tribunals now ignore arguments built on fabricated citations entirely; hallucinated cases cost the filer the issue, not just credibility.
What does the public record establish about Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532?: 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 Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532 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.

Janssen v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1851ONCAT · Oct 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Salah v. Peel Condominium CorporationONCAT · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Vasina v. York Condominium Corporation No. 486ONCAT · Jan 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382ONCAT · Dec 5, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations 14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · 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

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Operational lesson

Tribunals now ignore arguments built on fabricated citations entirely; hallucinated cases cost the filer the issue, not just credibility.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'McKnight v. York Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2020 ONCAT 40'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Rahman v. PSCC 779, 2021 ONCAT 51' and relied on a suggested holding; Tribunal noted the cited number/citation was incorrect and that, even if the Applicant meant Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2021 ONCAT 13, its facts and holding do not support the Applicant's proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2021 ONCAT 30'; Tribunal found this case does not exist and did not consider arguments based on it.

Why does Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532 matter for legal AI risk?

Tribunals now ignore arguments built on fabricated citations entirely; hallucinated cases cost the filer the issue, not just credibility.

What does the public record establish about Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532?

Which source supports this Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532 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.