AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesShakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233
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 95/100. 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

Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Courtready; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

LTB (Ontario) · May 26, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board could not locate the case references given at the hearing; a post-hearing submission said they were found using ChatGPT. The adjudicator noted that ChatGPT can create fictitious information, found the cases not instructive and decided the matter on other evidence without imposing sanctions.

Why the court cared
The adjudicator took judicial notice that ChatGPT is known to create fictitious information and found the provided citations were never located, rendering them not instructive to the decision.
Why it matters now
Tenant's ChatGPT-sourced case references could not be located and were not instructive; no sanction imposed.

Why this matter is tracked

In a residential tenancy dispute before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, the tenant submitted case law citations and legal ratios during the hearing that the adjudicator could not verify. Following the hearing, the tenant admitted in a post-hearing submission that these authorities were generated using ChatGPT. The adjudicator took judicial notice that ChatGPT is known to produce fictitious information. The Board ultimately disregarded the AI-generated citations, finding them unlocatable and not instructive to the decision. The adjudicator proceeded to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act based on the factual evidence of the parties' conduct and established legal principles, without relying on the fabricated materials. No sanctions were imposed regarding the use of AI.

Operational lesson

Tenant's ChatGPT-sourced case references could not be located and were not instructive; no sanction imposed.

Record details

CourtLTB (Ontario)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 26, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeNot classified
OutcomeThe Board determined the Residential Tenancies Act applies to the tenancy effective October 13, 2024, after disregarding the tenant's AI-generated case law.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNone.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The tenant admitted using ChatGPT for case references.

Procedural posture

Adjudicated order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board (Ontario) following a hearing on April 15, 2025, to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The Tenant gave case references and ratios at the hearing that the Board could not locate; a post-hearing submission said they were found using ChatGPT, which the Board noted (judicial notice) can create fictitious information; the cases were never produced and the Board did not find them instructive.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233?
The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board could not locate the case references given at the hearing; a post-hearing submission said they were found using ChatGPT. The adjudicator noted that ChatGPT can create fictitious information, found the cases not instructive and decided the matter on other evidence without imposing sanctions.
Why does Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233 matter for legal AI risk?
Tenant's ChatGPT-sourced case references could not be located and were not instructive; no sanction imposed.
What does the public record establish about Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233?
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 Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233 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.

Boonstra v Edmonton (City)Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · Apr 21, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPTRvVb-A-2526-0597RvVb · Mar 19, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPTFolarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPTDudak (Re)SafeRoads Alberta · Jan 2, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPTYuehong v. The Minister of Citizenship & ImmigrationFederal Court · Nov 19, 2025fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPTKhoury et al v. Intermountain Health Care Inc. et alD. Utah · Sep 30, 2025fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT

This record comes from Canada. See Fictitious citations in Canadian courts for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.

Weekly alert

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.