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
HomeCasesRajabi c. Lassalle
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 81/100. 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

Rajabi c. Lassalle

TAL Montréal · Nov 1, 2024

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal administratif du logement authorized the landlords' repossession request after finding the tenant's cited legal authorities were untraceable. The court did not impose sanctions for the citations, nor did it explicitly attribute the untraceable references to AI, though the case is tracked for the presence of hallucinated legal citations in a pro se filing.

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
OutcomeThe Tribunal authorized the repossession of the dwelling effective February 1, 2025, and ordered the landlords to pay the tenant a $3,000 indemnity.
Known amountCA$3,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source identifies the citations as untraceable, implying potential AI involvement without explicit confirmation.

Procedural posture

Adjudicated repossession application heard by the Tribunal administratif du logement on October 9, 2024, with a final decision issued on November 1, 2024.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant cited 'Roussel(le) c. Bergeron, 2011 QCRDL 2005 CanLII'; Tribunal noted the reference was introuvable.
  2. 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?
The Tribunal administratif du logement authorized the landlords' repossession request after finding the tenant's cited legal authorities were untraceable. The court did not impose sanctions for the citations, nor did it explicitly attribute the untraceable references to AI, though the case is tracked for the presence of hallucinated legal citations in a pro se filing.
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.

Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Alexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. RobibaroOntario Condominium Authority Tribunal · Jul 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)