Reid v Ramprasad
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board · Aug 5, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation in CanLII or through multiple search engines and treated it as an apparently nonexistent authority. Outcome: The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs.. In post-hearing submissions, the Tenant’s legal representative cited three authorities that the Board could not locate by name or citation: Brar v 1296425 Ontario Inc., Shepherd v Foye, and Johnson v Yelich. The Board found that the citations appeared to be potentially AI-hallucinated, did not rely on them, and noted that their submission wasted Board resources. No costs order was made because addressing the issue would have required reconvening the hearing or seeking further submissions, but the representative was warned that similar conduct could lead to costs. The Board also referred to Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, regarding the professional obligation to review AI-generated materials.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs. in Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation in CanLII or through multiple search engines and treated it as an apparently nonexistent authority. Outcome: The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs.. In post-hearing submissions, the Tenant’s legal representative cited three authorities that the Board could not locate by name or citation: Brar v 1296425 Ontario Inc., Shepherd v Foye, and Johnson v Yelich. The Board found that the citations appeared to be potentially AI-hallucinated, did not rely on them, and noted that their submission wasted Board resources. No costs order was made because addressing the issue would have required reconvening the hearing or seeking further submissions, but the representative was warned that similar conduct could lead to costs. The Board also referred to Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, regarding the professional obligation to review AI-generated materials.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs. in Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation in CanLII or through multiple search engines and treated it as an apparently nonexistent authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation; an online search instead produced an AI summary and information about a different case, suggesting the cited authority may have been AI-hallucinated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation in CanLII or through multiple search engines and treated it as an apparently nonexistent authority.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Reid v Ramprasad?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Board could not locate this case by name or citation in CanLII or through multiple search engines and treated it as an apparently nonexistent authority. Outcome: The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs.. In post-hearing submissions, the Tenant’s legal representative cited three authorities that the Board could not locate by name or citation: Brar v 1296425 Ontario Inc., Shepherd v Foye, and Johnson v Yelich. The Board found that the citations appeared to be potentially AI-hallucinated, did not rely on them, and noted that their submission wasted Board resources. No costs order was made because addressing the issue would have required reconvening the hearing or seeking further submissions, but the representative was warned that similar conduct could lead to costs. The Board also referred to Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, regarding the professional obligation to review AI-generated materials.
- Why does Reid v Ramprasad matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with The citations were not considered because they could not be located; the representative was warned that similar conduct could result in an order for Board or party costs. in Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Reid v Ramprasad?
- 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 Reid v Ramprasad 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.