Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 2004424 Ontario
CA Ontario · Sep 23, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CA Ontario
- Record ID
- stile-carpentry-ltd-v-2004424-ontario-2025-09-23
- Observed outcome
- Leave to represent the corporation was denied; the motion for an extension of time was adjourned pending the appointment of a lawyer; the corporation was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied a non-lawyer's request to represent a corporation after finding they repeatedly filed factums containing fabricated case law, statutory provisions, and false quotations. The court held that such conduct imposed an undue burden on the justice system and that the representative, lacking professional regulation, could not be held accountable for these filings.
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.
The decision treats citation fabrication as a practical access-to-justice and court-integrity issue, not merely a technical error.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Legal Norm
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- False Quotes: Case Law
- Pro Se
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Motion for leave to represent a corporation and motion for an extension of time to perfect an appeal.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The order describes fabricated authority but does not identify a particular AI tool or make a professional-discipline finding against a lawyer.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- A non-lawyer representative cannot rely on AI-generated citations without independent verification.
- Check links, statutes, quotations, and cited holdings—not only whether a case name exists.
- Corporate litigants should retain qualified counsel when the record shows repeated filing defects.