HomeCasesGu v Fogler Rubinoff

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

Gu v Fogler Rubinoff

SCJ Ontario · Jan 23, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotescontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's factum included at least two fully cited cases and quoted passages that could not be located; responding party brought this to court's attention; applicant's daughter conceded they were created by AI.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's factum included at least two fully cited cases and quoted passages that could not be located; responding party brought this to court's attention; applicant's daughter conceded they were created by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | One or more quoted passages attributed to cited cases were false because the underlying cases did not exist; court treated submission as misconduct and denied costs.
Why it matters now: When opposing a pro-se filer, check every citation yourself—courts reward counsel who surface AI hallucinations.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

When opposing a pro-se filer, check every citation yourself—courts reward counsel who surface AI hallucinations.

Record details

CourtSCJ Ontario

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 23, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

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 | Applicant's factum included at least two fully cited cases and quoted passages that could not be located; responding party brought this to court's attention; applicant's daughter conceded they were created by AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | One or more quoted passages attributed to cited cases were false because the underlying cases did not exist; court treated submission as misconduct and denied costs.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gu v Fogler Rubinoff?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's factum included at least two fully cited cases and quoted passages that could not be located; responding party brought this to court's attention; applicant's daughter conceded they were created by AI.
Why does Gu v Fogler Rubinoff matter for legal AI risk?: When opposing a pro-se filer, check every citation yourself—courts reward counsel who surface AI hallucinations.
What does the public record establish about Gu v Fogler Rubinoff?: 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 Gu v Fogler Rubinoff 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.

Iman Reza Saeidi v. Behzad Malaei DavuSCJ Ontario · May 30, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Bailey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.W.D. Tennessee · Jun 8, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce StewartSC Alabama · Apr 24, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

When opposing a pro-se filer, check every citation yourself—courts reward counsel who surface AI hallucinations.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | One or more quoted passages attributed to cited cases were false because the underlying cases did not exist; court treated submission as misconduct and denied costs.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gu v Fogler Rubinoff?

Why does Gu v Fogler Rubinoff matter for legal AI risk?

When opposing a pro-se filer, check every citation yourself—courts reward counsel who surface AI hallucinations.

What does the public record establish about Gu v Fogler Rubinoff?

Which source supports this Gu v Fogler Rubinoff 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.