HomeCasesShakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233

LTB (Ontario) · May 26, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant provided multiple case citations and ratios that could not be located; post‑hearing submission admitted they were found using ChatGPT and the Board found them fictitious/unlocatable and not instructive.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but no sanction imposed.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but no sanction imposed.

Record details

CourtLTB (Ontario)

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 26, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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 | Tenant provided multiple case citations and ratios that could not be located; post‑hearing submission admitted they were found using ChatGPT and the Board found them fictitious/unlocatable and not instructive.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233?: Fabricated: Case Law | Tenant provided multiple case citations and ratios that could not be located; post‑hearing submission admitted they were found using ChatGPT and the Board found them fictitious/unlocatable and not instructive.
Why does Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233 matter for legal AI risk?: Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but 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: ChatGPT RvVb-A-2526-0597RvVb · Mar 19, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Folarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Dudak (Re)SafeRoads Alberta · Jan 2, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Yuehong v. The Minister of Citizenship & ImmigrationFederal Court · Nov 19, 2025fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Khoury et al v. Intermountain Health Care Inc. et alD. Utah · Sep 30, 2025fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: ChatGPT

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but no sanction imposed.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233?

Why does Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233 matter for legal AI risk?

Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but no sanction imposed.

What does the public record establish about Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233?

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.