AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKaren Tyler v Attorney General of Canada
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Karen Tyler v Attorney General of Canada

Federal Court · Sep 3, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent authority cited for allowing extensions for CPPD/mental illness; Court found it does not exist and disregarded it. Outcome: Taken into account in adverse costs award.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Taken into account in adverse costs award. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Taken into account in adverse costs award in Federal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent authority cited for allowing extensions for CPPD/mental illness; Court found it does not exist and disregarded it. Outcome: Taken into account in adverse costs award.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Taken into account in adverse costs award in Federal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtFederal Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 3, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeTaken into account in adverse costs award
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Taken into account in adverse costs award

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent authority cited for allowing extensions for CPPD/mental illness; Court found it does not exist and disregarded it.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a purported decision excusing delay due to psychological illness; Court found the citation does not exist and disregarded it.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on an authority allegedly granting extension for disability and self-representation; Court found the citation fabricated and disregarded it.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a decision allegedly cautioning that procedural rules must not bar access to justice for disabled persons; Court found the citation non-existent and disregarded it.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Additional 'hallucinated' citation in the Reply identified by the Court as not reliable or non-existent and therefore disregarded.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Additional 'hallucinated' citation in the Reply identified by the Court as not reliable or non-existent and therefore disregarded.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Karen Tyler v Attorney General of Canada?
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent authority cited for allowing extensions for CPPD/mental illness; Court found it does not exist and disregarded it. Outcome: Taken into account in adverse costs award.
Why does Karen Tyler v Attorney General of Canada matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Taken into account in adverse costs award in Federal Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Karen Tyler v Attorney General of Canada?
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 Karen Tyler 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.

Myriane Béland v. Procureur général du CanadaFederal Court · Jun 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDjybril Voukeng Djatsa v. Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAbraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOkogun v CanadaFederal Court · Jun 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMarie Pia Fazio v Canada Revenue AgencyFederal Court · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMaryia Sinkova v The Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations