Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada
Federal Court · Mar 5, 2026
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second memorandum citation was likewise non-existent; the Court identified it as another fabricated case citation resulting from the Applicant's use of AI.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
CourtFederal Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 5, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | A second memorandum citation was likewise non-existent; the Court identified it as another fabricated case citation resulting from the Applicant's use of AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada?
- Fabricated: Case Law | One of the Applicant's memorandum citations did not exist; the Court found it to be a fabricated case citation produced by AI and described the jurisprudence as hallucinated.
- Why does Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada 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.