Munchang Choi v. Lloyd’s Register Canada Limited
IRB · Jul 23, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- IRB
- Record ID
- munchang-choi-v-lloyds-register-canada-limited-2024-07-23
- Observed outcome
- The complaints were dismissed as untimely, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$0
Why this matter warrants attention
The Board admonished the pro se complainant for submitting over 30 fabricated legal authorities generated by AI. Although the Board emphasized that parties are responsible for the accuracy of their filings and endorsed Federal Court guidelines on AI verification, it declined to award the respondent costs for the sur-reply necessitated by the complainant's conduct.
The Board reasoned that while the complainant is a self-represented party, he remains responsible for the accuracy of his submissions. It noted that the submission of over 30 fabricated authorities undermined the credibility of the complainant's case. The Board endorsed Federal Court guidelines urging caution and 'human in the loop' verification when using AI to generate legal references.
Over 30 fabricated citations in a single reply still drew only admonishment for pro-se filers; attorneys will not be so lucky.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$0
- Procedural posture
- The Board addressed preliminary issues, including the timeliness of complaints, admissibility of evidence, confidentiality, and a request for costs, before dismissing the underlying reprisal complaints.
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 identified the use of AI in the complainant's reply submissions.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.