HomeCasesS… F… c. I… O…

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

S… F… c. I… O…

Québec SC · Oct 31, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Used ChatGPT-generated citations that misrepresented the content of the Code of Civil Procedure; on key points the provisions said the opposite of what defendant claimed.
Why it matters now: ChatGPT flips statutory meaning — never quote a code provision without pulling the primary source.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

ChatGPT flips statutory meaning — never quote a code provision without pulling the primary source.

Record details

CourtQuébec SC

Jurisdictioninternational

Circuit4th Circuit

DateOct 31, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

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 | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Used ChatGPT-generated citations that misrepresented the content of the Code of Civil Procedure; on key points the provisions said the opposite of what defendant claimed.

Questions this record answers

What happened in S… F… c. I… O…?: Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist. Outcome: Warning.
Why does S… F… c. I… O… matter for legal AI risk?: ChatGPT flips statutory meaning — never quote a code provision without pulling the primary source.
What does the public record establish about S… F… c. I… O…?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this S… F… c. I… O… 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.

N… R… c. M… S…Québec SC · Feb 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.SC Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2026pro se + fake citations Re A, B, C, D (Extension of assessment; Use of AI: hallucinations)Family Court Bournemouth · Mar 5, 2026pro se + fake citations Jones v. Family Court at WhangareiSupreme Court · Feb 11, 2026pro se + fake citations Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of ClarkSC Nevada · Jan 13, 2026pro se + fake citations D (A Child) (Recusal)Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2025pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Used ChatGPT-generated citations that misrepresented the content of the Code of Civil Procedure; on key points the provisions said the opposite of what defendant claimed.

Questions this record answers

What happened in S… F… c. I… O…?

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited non-existent judicial decisions in submissions and oral argument; court found the decisions did not exist. Outcome: Warning.

Why does S… F… c. I… O… matter for legal AI risk?

ChatGPT flips statutory meaning — never quote a code provision without pulling the primary source.

What does the public record establish about S… F… c. I… O…?

Which source supports this S… F… c. I… O… 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.