Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario
CA Ontario · Sep 23, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Stile Carpentry sought more time to perfect an appeal and asked to be represented by a non-lawyer closely tied to the corporation. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the proposed representative had repeatedly filed factums containing nonexistent cases, irrelevant hyperlinks, invented statutory provisions, and fabricated quotations. It refused leave to represent the corporation, adjourned the extension motion, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs. The motion followed a June 2025 judgment and was heard on September 18, 2025, after a record of defective corporate filings.
- Why the court cared
- A corporation ordinarily requires counsel; the court concluded that this representative's repeated unreliable filings imposed unacceptable costs on the opposing party and the court.
- Why it matters now
- The decision treats citation fabrication as a practical access-to-justice and court-integrity issue, not merely a technical error.
Why this matter is tracked
Stile Carpentry sought more time to perfect an appeal and asked to be represented by a non-lawyer closely tied to the corporation. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the proposed representative had repeatedly filed factums containing nonexistent cases, irrelevant hyperlinks, invented statutory provisions, and fabricated quotations. It refused leave to represent the corporation, adjourned the extension motion, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs. The motion followed a June 2025 judgment and was heard on September 18, 2025, after a record of defective corporate filings.
Operational lesson
The decision treats citation fabrication as a practical access-to-justice and court-integrity issue, not merely a technical error.
Record details
CourtCA Ontario
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 23, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) 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
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The factums referenced statutory provisions that do not exist (fabricated legal norms); court flagged the references as invented.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Provided notional hyperlinks to authorities that instead linked to wholly irrelevant documents, creating misleading exhibits/submissions.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Factums referenced non-existent case law throughout, citing cases that do not exist; court identified the citations as fabrications.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Genuine cases were miscited and relied on for propositions those cases did not address; court characterised these as misrepresentations of precedent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted text attributed to case law and statutes was fabricated (false quotations); court noted quoted passages were made up.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario?
- Stile Carpentry sought more time to perfect an appeal and asked to be represented by a non-lawyer closely tied to the corporation. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the proposed representative had repeatedly filed factums containing nonexistent cases, irrelevant hyperlinks, invented statutory provisions, and fabricated quotations. It refused leave to represent the corporation, adjourned the extension motion, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs. The motion followed a June 2025 judgment and was heard on September 18, 2025, after a record of defective corporate filings.
- Why does Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario matter for legal AI risk?
- The decision treats citation fabrication as a practical access-to-justice and court-integrity issue, not merely a technical error.
- What does the public record establish about Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario?
- The order describes fabricated authority but does not identify a particular AI tool or make a professional-discipline finding against a lawyer.
- Which source supports this Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario 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.