Walker v. Collingwood General and Marine Hospital
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario · Nov 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
- Record ID
- walker-v-collingwood-general-and-marine-hospital-2025-11-21
- Observed outcome
- Request for Reconsideration denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied a self-represented applicant's request for reconsideration after the applicant submitted three fabricated or misattributed case citations. The Tribunal determined that the applicant failed to verify the existence of these authorities, which were likely generated by an AI tool, and concluded that such conduct undermines the administration of justice.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Dhanjal v. Air Canada, 2016 HRTO 1301' as HRTO authority; Tribunal located Dhanjal as a 1996 CHRT decision (CanLII 2385) and not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattribution of the source. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Sokoloff v. Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 539' as an HRTO decision and for the proposition that limitation periods do not run while discrimination continues; Tribunal found no such HRTO decision and the citation does not exist on CanLII. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Turner v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2017 HRTO 211' as Tribunal authority; Tribunal located a Turner decision but as 2020 CHRT 1 (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal), not as the HRTO citation provided, indicating a misattributed precedent.
Reconsideration denials citing AI-invented precedent reinforce that every cite must resolve on CanLII before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misattributed_precedent
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Reconsideration request following a dismissal of an application alleging discrimination.
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 Tribunal references the use of AI applications in drafting and 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.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.