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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Rajabi c. Lassalle
TAL Montréal · Nov 1, 2024
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Quebec's Tribunal administratif du logement considered landlords' request to repossess a Montreal apartment for their own occupancy. The tenant opposed the request and cited Roussel(le) c. Bergeron, 2011 QCRDL 2005 CanLII, and Bureau c. Maison, 2005 QCRLD 12345 CanLII. The tribunal expressly stated that both references were untraceable. It then evaluated the parties' evidence about intended occupancy, finances, and the tenant's objections under the Quebec Civil Code repossession framework. The decision contains no AI attribution or separate citation sanction. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.…
- Why the court cared
- The tribunal applied the statutory repossession test to the parties’ evidence; the untraceable references did not substitute for that analysis.
- Why it matters now
- This primary decision contains untraceable authorities in a fact-driven housing dispute without an AI finding.
Why this matter is tracked
Quebec's Tribunal administratif du logement considered landlords' request to repossess a Montreal apartment for their own occupancy. The tenant opposed the request and cited Roussel(le) c. Bergeron, 2011 QCRDL 2005 CanLII, and Bureau c. Maison, 2005 QCRLD 12345 CanLII. The tribunal expressly stated that both references were untraceable. It then evaluated the parties' evidence about intended occupancy, finances, and the tenant's objections under the Quebec Civil Code repossession framework. The decision contains no AI attribution or separate citation sanction. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.
Operational lesson
French-language tribunals catch fake CanLII cites just as fast — jurisdiction is no shield.
Record details
CourtTAL Montréal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 1, 2024
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant cited 'Roussel(le) c. Bergeron, 2011 QCRDL 2005 CanLII'; Tribunal noted the reference was introuvable.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant cited 'Bureau c. Maison, 2005 QCRLD 12345 CanLII'; Tribunal noted the reference was introuvable.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rajabi c. Lassalle?
- Quebec's Tribunal administratif du logement considered landlords' request to repossess a Montreal apartment for their own occupancy. The tenant opposed the request and cited Roussel(le) c. Bergeron, 2011 QCRDL 2005 CanLII, and Bureau c. Maison, 2005 QCRLD 12345 CanLII. The tribunal expressly stated that both references were untraceable. It then evaluated the parties' evidence about intended occupancy, finances, and the tenant's objections under the Quebec Civil Code repossession framework. The decision contains no AI attribution or separate citation sanction. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.…
- Why does Rajabi c. Lassalle matter for legal AI risk?
- This primary decision contains untraceable authorities in a fact-driven housing dispute without an AI finding.
- What does the public record establish about Rajabi c. Lassalle?
- The tribunal called two references untraceable; it did not call them AI-generated.
- Which source supports this Rajabi c. Lassalle 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.