Which source supports this Samson v. Chartrand summary?

The recorded source is courtready.ca. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesSamson v. Chartrand

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 80/100. 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

Samson v. Chartrand

Conseil de Discipline des Opticiens · May 8, 2026

Canada Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations administrative trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Conseil de discipline found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for obstructing an investigation by submitting fabricated emails and documents to the syndic. The council determined these actions were intended to deceive the disciplinary process, violating the Code des professions. The matter is currently pending a hearing on sanctions.

Why the court cared: The council concluded the respondent fabricated emails and PDF documents to falsely suggest prior compliance with the syndic's requests, thereby obstructing the investigation in violation of the Code des professions.
Why it matters now: This case highlights the severe professional consequences of submitting fabricated evidence in disciplinary proceedings. It serves as a reminder that the integrity of digital records and correspondence is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny in professional regulatory matters.

Why this matter is tracked

In Opticiens d'ordonnances (Ordre professionnel des) c. Chartrand, 2026 QCCDOOD 4, the Conseil de discipline addressed disciplinary complaints against an optician, Martin Chartrand. The syndic alleged that the respondent fabricated emails and PDF documents to falsely demonstrate compliance with previous information requests. The council found the respondent guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct, specifically regarding the obstruction of the syndic's investigation through the submission of falsified evidence. The decision details the respondent's attempt to mislead the disciplinary process by creating documents that appeared to have been sent years prior. The council concluded that these actions constituted a breach of the Code des professions, and the matter was scheduled for a subsequent hearing on sanctions.

Operational lesson

This case highlights the severe professional consequences of submitting fabricated evidence in disciplinary proceedings. It serves as a reminder that the integrity of digital records and correspondence is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny in professional regulatory matters.

Record details

CourtConseil de Discipline des Opticiens

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 8, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe respondent was found guilty of multiple counts of professional misconduct related to the obstruction of the syndic's investigation.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Decision on guilt regarding disciplinary complaints 27-22-460 and 27-24-465, following a hearing on the merits.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | At least one fabricated case

Questions this record answers

What happened in Samson v. Chartrand?: The Conseil de discipline found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for obstructing an investigation by submitting fabricated emails and documents to the syndic. The council determined these actions were intended to deceive the disciplinary process, violating the Code des professions. The matter is currently pending a hearing on sanctions.
Why does Samson v. Chartrand matter for legal AI risk?: This case highlights the severe professional consequences of submitting fabricated evidence in disciplinary proceedings. It serves as a reminder that the integrity of digital records and correspondence is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny in professional regulatory matters.
What does the public record establish about Samson v. Chartrand?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Samson v. Chartrand summary?: The recorded source is courtready.ca. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

CCDP v. Canada AG & Frantz Saint-JeanFederal Court (Canada) · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Myriane Béland v. Procureur général du CanadaFederal Court · Jun 11, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Abraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Marie Pia Fazio v Canada Revenue AgencyFederal Court · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Amit Arora v Canadian National RailwayFederal Court · Apr 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson CrumpW.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

courtready.ca

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open Conseil de Discipline des Opticiens profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology