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
HomeCasesWang v. Mongeon
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 81/100. 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

Wang v. Mongeon

HRT Ontario · Nov 19, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction due to judicial immunity. Additionally, the adjudicator identified that the applicant submitted three fabricated case citations, noting that these non-existent authorities raised concerns regarding the potential use of artificial intelligence in the applicant's research.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Wong v. Toronto (City), 2022 HRTO 987"; Tribunal found no such decision and that the citation number corresponds to a different case unrelated to the matter. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Tan v. RBC, 2021 HRTO 432"; Tribunal determined this citation does not exist and the number relates to a different Tribunal decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Chen v. Ontario (Justice of the Peace), 2020 HRTO 112"; Tribunal found no matching decision and noted the citation number is associated with a differently named matter.
Why it matters now
Tribunals cross-check citation numbers against their own docket — invented HRTO numbers are exposed within one filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In Wang v. Mongeon, 2025 HRTO 2859, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed an application alleging discrimination by a judge. The applicant, a self-represented litigant, claimed the respondent judge exhibited racial bias during a court proceeding. The Tribunal held that the doctrine of judicial immunity bars such claims, noting that judicial independence precludes the Tribunal from reviewing judicial conduct or decisions. During the proceedings, the applicant cited three specific HRTO decisions to support his position. The Tribunal found that none of these cases exist; the provided citation numbers correspond to unrelated matters. The adjudicator noted this raised concerns regarding the applicant's potential use of artificial intelligence and reminded the party of the responsibility for submission accuracy.

Operational lesson

Tribunals cross-check citation numbers against their own docket — invented HRTO numbers are exposed within one filing.

Record details

CourtHRT Ontario
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 19, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) regarding jurisdiction, received written submissions from the applicant, and subsequently dismissed the application.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Wong v. Toronto (City), 2022 HRTO 987"; Tribunal found no such decision and that the citation number corresponds to a different case unrelated to the matter.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Tan v. RBC, 2021 HRTO 432"; Tribunal determined this citation does not exist and the number relates to a different Tribunal decision.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited "Chen v. Ontario (Justice of the Peace), 2020 HRTO 112"; Tribunal found no matching decision and noted the citation number is associated with a differently named matter.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wang v. Mongeon?
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction due to judicial immunity. Additionally, the adjudicator identified that the applicant submitted three fabricated case citations, noting that these non-existent authorities raised concerns regarding the potential use of artificial intelligence in the applicant's research.
Why does Wang v. Mongeon matter for legal AI risk?
Tribunals cross-check citation numbers against their own docket — invented HRTO numbers are exposed within one filing.
What does the public record establish about Wang v. Mongeon?
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 Wang v. Mongeon 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.

Maruta v. MahonHRT Ontario · Mar 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAsey v. The Association of Justice CounselHRT Ontario · Mar 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsChaudhary v. GenestHRT Ontario · Dec 29, 2025same court · pro se + civil rightsVisca v. Halton District School BoardHRT Ontario · Oct 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMacEachern-Flatt v. University Health NetworkHRT Ontario · Aug 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLakhanpal v. Avis Budget Group Inc.HRT Ontario · Jun 4, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations