Shakori v Tern, 2025 ONLTB 31233
LTB (Ontario) · May 26, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board rejected case law citations provided by a tenant after the tenant admitted they were generated by ChatGPT and were fictitious. The adjudicator disregarded the AI-generated content, noting it was not instructive, and decided the matter based on other evidence without imposing sanctions for the AI usage.
- 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
- Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but 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.
Pro-se tenant's ChatGPT-sourced citations rejected as fictitious; admitted post-hearing but no sanction imposed.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The tenant admitted using ChatGPT for case references.
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 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?
- The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board rejected case law citations provided by a tenant after the tenant admitted they were generated by ChatGPT and were fictitious. The adjudicator disregarded the AI-generated content, noting it was not instructive, and decided the matter based on other evidence without imposing sanctions for the AI usage.
- 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.