Re Reza Khoshnik
Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy) · Mar 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario SCJ (Bankruptcy)
- Record ID
- re-reza-khoshnik-2026-03-16
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the parties to file updated Bills of Costs to assess an adverse costs award against the Bankrupt.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the Bankrupt used generative AI to produce court materials containing fabricated and mischaracterized legal citations. The court required the parties to submit updated Bills of Costs to determine the quantum of an adverse costs order, clarifying that such costs are not provable in bankruptcy.
The court reasoned that the Bankrupt's reliance on AI-generated materials without verification constituted a failure to meet the duty to represent the law faithfully. Citing Ko v. Li and other precedents, the court held that litigants must ensure human review of AI-generated content and that submitting non-existent or mischaracterized authorities is an abuse of process.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants using AI to generate court filings. It reinforces the requirement for human verification of AI-generated legal research and confirms that costs arising from such misconduct are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bankruptcy
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Motion for leave to lift the automatic stay pursuant to section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
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 Bankrupt admitted to using AI to generate materials.
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
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.