The Vancor Group Inc. v. 2744364 Ontario Limited et al
Ontario SCJ · Oct 28, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ontario SCJ
- Record ID
- the-vancor-group-inc-v-2744364-ontario-limited-et-al-2025-10-28
- Observed outcome
- The court admonished the litigant for submitting fabricated and misrepresented case law and granted the motions for security for costs.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court admonished a self-represented litigant for submitting AI-generated fabricated case law and misrepresented authorities in his factum. The court ruled that all parties, including self-represented litigants, have a mandatory obligation to verify the existence and accuracy of every authority cited to the court, regardless of the research tools used.
Fabricated: Case Law | Monitor identified and court found that 'Valgardson v. British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 20' does not exist; cited by Mr. Schaller in his factum and characterized as an AI-generated fabricated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mr. Schaller cited 'Wallace v. Crates Marine Sales Ltd. 2014 ONSC 3124' for a proposition about balancing fairness/efficiency/access to justice; the court noted the cited decision does not exist as cited and the actual similar authority (Wallace v. Crate’s Marine Sales Ltd., 2014 ONCA 671) does not stand for that proposition. || Fabricated: Other | Monitor flagged a number of other authorities cited by Mr. Schaller that either could not be found or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
Monitor review still catches AI fabrications — expect your factum to be audited line by line.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified online research tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter involved motions for security for costs brought by the Monitor and the Van Iersel Parties against a self-represented litigant in an ongoing CCAA proceeding.
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 litigant admitted to using online tools to assist with research.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.