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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Lloyd’s Register Canada v. Munchang Choi
Federal Court of Canada · Jul 10, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent misrepresented Fontaine by claiming it supports subpoena discretion; the Court noted the case concerns residential schools appeal motions, not subpoenas. Outcome: Motion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant. The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, used generative AI tools for drafting and preliminary research, leading to the citation of a non-existent case, 'Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777', in his Motion Record.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Motion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Federal Court of Canada's AI Practice Direction requires an affirmative declaration; silence plus fabrication escalates to vexatious status.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent misrepresented Fontaine by claiming it supports subpoena discretion; the Court noted the case concerns residential schools appeal motions, not subpoenas. Outcome: Motion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant. The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, used generative AI tools for drafting and preliminary research, leading to the citation of a non-existent case, 'Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777', in his Motion Record. The Court found this to be a fabricated citation, and the (allegedly) intended citation pointed to an irrelevant case.The court further pointed out that the Respondent had already been caught fabricating citations in a previous proceeding. Despite acknowledging use of AI, the respondent had also failed to provide the declaration on this point required by the AI Practice Direction. The Court ordered the removal of the Motion Record from the file. Costs of $500 CAD were awarded to the Applicant.In a later order, Respondent was designated as a vexatious litigant and enjoined from filing new cases without leave.
Operational lesson
Federal Court of Canada's AI Practice Direction requires an affirmative declaration; silence plus fabrication escalates to vexatious status.
Record details
CourtFederal Court of Canada
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 10, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMotion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant
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
Motion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent misrepresented Fontaine by claiming it supports subpoena discretion; the Court noted the case concerns residential schools appeal motions, not subpoenas.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case; the Court found “Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777” does not exist and was apparently AI-generated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lloyd’s Register Canada v. Munchang Choi?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent misrepresented Fontaine by claiming it supports subpoena discretion; the Court noted the case concerns residential schools appeal motions, not subpoenas. Outcome: Motion Record removed from Court file; costs awarded to Applicant. The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, used generative AI tools for drafting and preliminary research, leading to the citation of a non-existent case, 'Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777', in his Motion Record.…
- Why does Lloyd’s Register Canada v. Munchang Choi matter for legal AI risk?
- Federal Court of Canada's AI Practice Direction requires an affirmative declaration; silence plus fabrication escalates to vexatious status.
- What does the public record establish about Lloyd’s Register Canada v. Munchang Choi?
- 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 Lloyd’s Register Canada v. Munchang Choi 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.