Mohamed Elkareem v ATU Local 113 and Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)
Ontario LRB · Jul 11, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario LRB
- Record ID
- mohamed-elkareem-v-atu-local-113-and-toronto-transit-commission-ttc-2025-07-11
- Observed outcome
- The Board dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Ontario Labour Relations Board refused to consider legal citations provided by a pro se applicant because they could not be verified on CanLII. The Board concluded these citations were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to rely on them in its decision-making process.
The Board reasoned that it will not accept a party's assertion of case interpretation without reading the cases. Because the applicant failed to provide copies or verifiable citations, and the Board could not locate them on CanLII, it determined the citations were likely AI-generated hallucinations and excluded them from consideration.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research. It provides a clear example of a tribunal's refusal to consider unverified, potentially hallucinated authorities, reinforcing the necessity of citation verification.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter came before the Board as a request for reconsideration of prior Board decisions dated June 13 and 19, 2025, regarding the removal of a party and other procedural motions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The Board noted the citations may have been generated through AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.