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
HomeCasesLakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.
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

Lakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.

HRT Ontario · Jun 4, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely, finding that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay. The adjudicator explicitly disregarded three cited cases because they do not exist, concluding they provided no valid precedent for the applicant's position.

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
OutcomeThe application was dismissed for being filed outside the statutory limitation period.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source identifies the submission of fabricated cases, which is a common indicator of AI hallucination.

Procedural posture

The Tribunal conducted a hearing in writing to determine its jurisdiction over an application filed after the one-year limitation period.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Morgis v. Thomson Consumer Electronics (1998) HRTO'; Tribunal found no such decision exists and gave it no weight.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Narasimhalu v. Ontario (2009) HRTO 1894'; Tribunal found no such decision exists and gave it no weight.
  3. 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 Tribunal dismissed the application as untimely, finding that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay. The adjudicator explicitly disregarded three cited cases because they do not exist, concluding they provided no valid precedent for the applicant's position.
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.

Asey v. The Association of Justice CounselHRT Ontario · Mar 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMacEachern-Flatt v. University Health NetworkHRT Ontario · Aug 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMaruta v. MahonHRT Ontario · Mar 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsWang v. MongeonHRT Ontario · Nov 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsVisca v. Halton District School BoardHRT Ontario · Oct 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsChaudhary v. GenestHRT Ontario · Dec 29, 2025same court · pro se + trial