Amit Arora v. Canadian National Railway

Cited a nonexistent case 'Manitoba v. CHRC, 2016 FC 836' as authority for a proposition about reply affidavits; Court found no such case at that citation and that the paragraphs cited did not support the proposition.

Cited 'CP Rail v. Canada (AG), 2015 FC 1348' which the Court determined does not exist and is a hallucinated authority.

Asserted the legal proposition that 'reply affidavits served within the Rule 312(1) window do not require leave'—the Court found this proposition to be false and misstates the law.