Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.
HRT Ontario · Jun 4, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered an application filed more than two months late. The applicant relied on purported HRTO decisions including Morgis v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Narasimhalu v. Ontario, and Ahmed v. Shelter Canadian Properties. The Tribunal found no HRTO decisions under those names and gave them no weight. It held that the applicant's personal circumstances did not establish due diligence and that no medical material showed she was unable to file on time. The late application was not excused. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal found the evidence inadequate to establish due diligence.
- Why it matters now
- The decision excludes defective authority and resolves timeliness on the actual evidence.
Why this matter is tracked
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered an application filed more than two months late. The applicant relied on purported HRTO decisions including Morgis v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Narasimhalu v. Ontario, and Ahmed v. Shelter Canadian Properties. The Tribunal found no HRTO decisions under those names and gave them no weight. It held that the applicant's personal circumstances did not establish due diligence and that no medical material showed she was unable to file on time. The late application was not excused. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.
Operational lesson
Tribunal gave no weight to three fabricated HRTO citations from self-represented applicant; no penalty imposed.
Record details
CourtHRT Ontario
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 4, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Morgis v. Thomson Consumer Electronics (1998) HRTO'; Tribunal found no such decision exists and gave it no weight.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Narasimhalu v. Ontario (2009) HRTO 1894'; Tribunal found no such decision exists and gave it no weight.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Ahmed v. Shelter Canadian Properties Limited (2003) HRTO'; Tribunal found no such decision exists and gave it no weight.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.?
- The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered an application filed more than two months late. The applicant relied on purported HRTO decisions including Morgis v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Narasimhalu v. Ontario, and Ahmed v. Shelter Canadian Properties. The Tribunal found no HRTO decisions under those names and gave them no weight. It held that the applicant's personal circumstances did not establish due diligence and that no medical material showed she was unable to file on time. The late application was not excused. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.
- Why does Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- The decision excludes defective authority and resolves timeliness on the actual evidence.
- What does the public record establish about Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.?
- No AI tool or standalone citation sanction is identified.
- Which source supports this Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc. 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.