AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSt-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc.
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 76/100. 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

St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc.

TAT · Dec 15, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) rejected an application for review of a dismissal decision. The applicant attempted to support his claims by citing a non-existent case, 'Bélanger c. Ville de Repentigny, 2008 QCCA 603'. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not exist and was not pleaded in the original proceeding, and subsequently found no fundamental error in the original ruling.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Bélanger c. Ville de Repentigny, 2008 QCCA 603'; Tribunal states this decision does not exist and was not pleaded before TAT-1.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in TAT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a review proceeding before the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT), the applicant, a pro se litigant, challenged a prior decision (TAT-1) that upheld his dismissal for breach of loyalty and conflict of interest. The applicant alleged that the original decision contained fundamental errors, including an incomplete analysis of intellectual property theft allegations and reliance on biased internal investigations. During the review, the applicant cited 'Bélanger c. Ville de Repentigny, 2008 QCCA 603' to support his arguments regarding procedural fairness. The Tribunal explicitly noted that this cited decision does not exist and was not raised during the initial proceedings. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application for review, finding no fundamental procedural or substantive errors in the original decision.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in TAT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtTAT
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe application for review was dismissed; the original decision upholding the termination of employment stands.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source does not name a tool, but the nature of the error implies AI usage.

Procedural posture

Decision on a request for review or revocation of a prior administrative tribunal decision (TAT-1) regarding employment termination.

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 | Applicant cited 'Bélanger c. Ville de Repentigny, 2008 QCCA 603'; Tribunal states this decision does not exist and was not pleaded before TAT-1.

Questions this record answers

What happened in St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc.?
The Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) rejected an application for review of a dismissal decision. The applicant attempted to support his claims by citing a non-existent case, 'Bélanger c. Ville de Repentigny, 2008 QCCA 603'. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not exist and was not pleaded in the original proceeding, and subsequently found no fundamental error in the original ruling.
Why does St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in TAT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc.?
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 St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada inc. 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.

Bégin-Létourneau c. Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d'Hydro-QuébecTAT · Dec 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSantos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Heywood v State of Queensland (Department of Education)Queensland IRC · Aug 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cecile Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al.C.D. California · Aug 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Mary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)