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
HomeCasesPennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited
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 90/100. 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

Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited

Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board · Jul 21, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board denied a review request and issued a formal warning to the legal representative for submitting fabricated case law and non-existent procedural rules. The Board characterized the failure to verify these materials as a serious breach of professional obligations and warned that future similar conduct could lead to personal cost orders for abuse of process.

Why the court cared
The Member reasoned that the representative failed to meet professional obligations by submitting non-existent authorities and rules, causing the Board to waste resources. The Member explicitly linked these errors to the use of generative AI and warned that such conduct, if repeated, would be viewed as an abuse of process warranting personal cost orders.
Why it matters now
Every neutral citation must be clicked and read; AI frequently generates real-looking citations pointing to unrelated cases.

Why this matter is tracked

The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board denied a review request after finding that the legal representative, Eric Sabbah, relied on multiple non-existent court decisions and a non-existent procedural rule. The Board noted that several provided neutral citations pointed to unrelated criminal or commercial cases, while others could not be located. The Member observed that these errors resemble 'hallucinations' associated with generative AI. The Board cautioned that the representative's failure to exercise due diligence in verifying authorities and rules constitutes a serious breach of professional obligations. It warned that similar future submissions could be treated as an abuse of process, potentially resulting in personal cost orders against the representative.

Operational lesson

Every neutral citation must be clicked and read; AI frequently generates real-looking citations pointing to unrelated cases.

Record details

CourtOntario Landlord and Tenant Board
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 21, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence applications
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe review request was denied, and the representative was formally warned regarding professional obligations and potential future cost orders.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionFormal warning regarding professional obligations and potential future personal cost orders for abuse of process.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The Member identified the use of generative artificial intelligence applications.

Procedural posture

Preliminary review of a request to review a prior Board order, conducted without a hearing.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited LTB decision could not be located on CanLII.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; neutral citation actually belongs to an unrelated case (TD Bank v. Ottlantis Inc.).
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; neutral citation/hyperlink points to R. v. T.T., 2009 ONCA 613, unrelated to the stated proposition.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Case and neutral citation not found on CanLII.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Case and neutral citation not found on CanLII.
  6. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Relied on a non-existent procedural rule; the Board’s Rules contain only 27 rules.
  7. Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Claimed the order determined the unit is governed by the Innkeepers Act; the order made no such finding.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited?
The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board denied a review request and issued a formal warning to the legal representative for submitting fabricated case law and non-existent procedural rules. The Board characterized the failure to verify these materials as a serious breach of professional obligations and warned that future similar conduct could lead to personal cost orders for abuse of process.
Why does Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited matter for legal AI risk?
Every neutral citation must be clicked and read; AI frequently generates real-looking citations pointing to unrelated cases.
What does the public record establish about Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited?
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 Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited 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.

Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)