AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesGilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Gilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau

TA Québec · Oct 11, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal administratif du Québec identified that the pro se applicant cited five nonexistent or erroneous case law references in his submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its searches failed to locate these decisions, noting they were either nonexistent or incorrectly cited.

Why the court cared
The Tribunal determined that the applicant's cited jurisprudence was irrelevant or nonexistent, specifically noting that five cited decisions could not be found in its searches and were deemed nonexistent or erroneous.
Why it matters now
Quebec tribunals routinely flag pro-se AI citations as nonexistent; verify every QCTAQ reference on CanLII.

Why this matter is tracked

In a municipal tax assessment appeal before the Tribunal administratif du Québec, the pro se applicant, Gilles Dulac, challenged the property valuation of his residential unit. During the proceedings, the applicant submitted several legal authorities to support his arguments. The Tribunal noted that it attempted to verify these citations, specifically 'Lambert c. Laval, 2019 QCTAQ 0678', '2024 QCTAQ 02812', '2024 QCTAQ 2765', 'Tremblay c. Québec, 2018 QCTAQ 0921', and 'Bouchard c. Montréal, 2017 QCTAQ 1342'. The Tribunal reported that its searches could not locate these decisions, concluding that the references were either nonexistent or erroneous. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the applicant's evidence and maintained the municipal valuation of the property.

Operational lesson

Quebec tribunals routinely flag pro-se AI citations as nonexistent; verify every QCTAQ reference on CanLII.

Record details

CourtTA Québec
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 11, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence and maintained the original municipal property valuation.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The Tribunal identified nonexistent citations, a common indicator of AI hallucination.

Procedural posture

Administrative appeal regarding municipal property tax assessment before the Tribunal administratif du Québec.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Lambert c. Laval, 2019 QCTAQ 0678'; Tribunal's searches could not locate this decision and deemed the reference nonexistent or erroneous.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited '2024 QCTAQ 02812'; Tribunal's searches could not locate this decision and deemed the reference nonexistent or erroneous.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited '2024 QCTAQ 2765'; Tribunal's searches could not locate this decision and deemed the reference nonexistent or erroneous.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Tremblay c. Québec, 2018 QCTAQ 0921'; Tribunal's searches could not locate this decision and deemed the reference nonexistent or erroneous.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Bouchard c. Montréal, 2017 QCTAQ 1342'; Tribunal's searches could not locate this decision and deemed the reference nonexistent or erroneous.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau?
The Tribunal administratif du Québec identified that the pro se applicant cited five nonexistent or erroneous case law references in his submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated that its searches failed to locate these decisions, noting they were either nonexistent or incorrectly cited.
Why does Gilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau matter for legal AI risk?
Quebec tribunals routinely flag pro-se AI citations as nonexistent; verify every QCTAQ reference on CanLII.
What does the public record establish about Gilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau?
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 Gilles Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau 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.

Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Alexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. RobibaroOntario Condominium Authority Tribunal · Jul 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)