Pennytech Inc v Superior Building Group Limited
Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board · Jul 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board
- Record ID
- pennytech-inc-v-superior-building-group-limited-2025-07-21
- Observed outcome
- The review request was denied, and the representative was formally warned regarding professional obligations and potential future cost orders.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Every neutral citation must be clicked and read; AI frequently generates real-looking citations pointing to unrelated cases.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Fabricated Procedural Rules
- Lack Of Due Diligence In Verification
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence applications
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Preliminary review of a request to review a prior Board order, conducted without a hearing.
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 Member identified the use of generative artificial intelligence applications.
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
- Independently verify every case citation and procedural rule against official databases like CanLII.
- Implement mandatory human review protocols for all legal submissions generated or assisted by AI tools.
- Ensure that cited authorities are not only real but also substantively relevant to the legal propositions asserted.
- Maintain an audit trail of research verification to demonstrate due diligence in the event of a challenge.