Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1HILVZYGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Erin Gray v Attorney General of Canada

Federal Court · Mar 5, 2026

Jurisdiction
international
Court
Federal Court
Record ID
erin-gray-v-attorney-general-of-canada-2026-03-05
Observed outcome
The application for judicial review was dismissed; no costs were awarded to the respondent.
Known monetary consequence
CA$0
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court identified that the pro se applicant included two fabricated case citations in her memorandum, which she admitted were generated by an AI tool. The court noted this violated the Federal Court Practice Direction on the use of AI, though it did not impose specific sanctions for the AI usage itself.

Why the decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Administrative
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
CA$0
Procedural posture
Judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency decision denying CERB eligibility, dismissed by the Federal Court.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The applicant admitted to using an unidentified AI application.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.