Hogan v. Treasury Board
Federal PSLREB · Oct 1, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Board denied the complainant's request for interim relief, finding it lacked the statutory jurisdiction to grant such orders. The decision was informed by the Board's determination that Parliament had intentionally withheld this power, evidenced by the rejection of prior legislative amendments. The Board also noted the complainant's reliance on fabricated and misrepresented legal authorities, likely generated by AI.
- Why the court cared
- The Board reasoned that it is a creature of statute and lacks express or implied jurisdiction to grant interim relief. It determined that Parliament addressed its mind to this specific power by rejecting a proposed amendment in 2003 that would have granted the Board authority to issue interim orders. The Board further noted that the complainant's reliance on non-existent or mischaracterized authorities provided no support for her claims.
- Why it matters now
- AI fabricates statutory text, not just cases; verify the actual wording of every section quoted.
Why this matter is tracked
In Hogan v. Treasury Board, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) addressed a pro se complainant's request for interim wage relief. The complainant submitted extensive legal arguments relying on fabricated statutory text, non-existent case law, and misrepresented precedents. The Board identified that the complainant's submissions contained multiple hallmarks of AI-generated content, including invented citations and unrelated case propositions. The Board concluded it lacked the jurisdiction to grant interim relief, noting that Parliament had explicitly considered and rejected amendments to grant such authority. The Board emphasized that parties using AI to prepare submissions must verify the accuracy and reliability of all cited authorities and statutory provisions.
AI fabricates statutory text, not just cases; verify the actual wording of every section quoted.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Board attributed the errors to AI tools used by the complainant.
The matter was decided by the Board on the basis of written submissions filed by the parties in June and July 2025.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Complainant repeatedly quoted an invented version of s.129(6) of the Canada Labour Code to claim entitlement to continued wages; the Board noted the quoted wording is fabricated and irrelevant because no directions were made by the Head.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited 'Merriweather v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 109', which the Board states does not exist.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Complainant relied on a 'H&S Officer Training Module - Labour Program, 2018 edition' that the Board could not locate and treats as non-existent.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Complainant relied on ss. 22 and 44 of the (former) FPSLRA to claim broad remedial/interim powers; the Board noted those sections were repealed in 2013 and did not say what the complainant attributed to them.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited 'Fanning v. Treasury Board, 2023 FPSLREB 12', which the Board states does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited 'Vancouver v. CUPE, 2006 SCC 27', which the Board states does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited 'Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (AG), 2018 FCA 12', which the Board states does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant relied on IWA v. Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd., [1990] 1 SCR 282 for the proposition that administrative tribunals have authority to grant interim relief; the Board noted the case does not address interim relief and was mischaracterized.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant relied on Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 2016 SCC 29 for the proposition that tribunals can grant interim relief; the Board found this to be a mischaracterization of that decision.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Complainant claimed White v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), 2022 FPSLREB 52 supported interim wage orders; the Board observed that decision did not order interim relief and the complainant misrepresented it.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Hogan v. Treasury Board?
- The Board denied the complainant's request for interim relief, finding it lacked the statutory jurisdiction to grant such orders. The decision was informed by the Board's determination that Parliament had intentionally withheld this power, evidenced by the rejection of prior legislative amendments. The Board also noted the complainant's reliance on fabricated and misrepresented legal authorities, likely generated by AI.
- Why does Hogan v. Treasury Board matter for legal AI risk?
- AI fabricates statutory text, not just cases; verify the actual wording of every section quoted.
- What does the public record establish about Hogan v. Treasury Board?
- 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 Hogan v. Treasury Board 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.