HomeCasesAQ v. BT

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

AQ v. BT

CRT · Mar 28, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs. Outcome: Arguments ignored.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Arguments ignored; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Tribunals silently ignore AI-fabricated statutes and misapplied precedents; arguments collapse without challenge.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs. Outcome: Arguments ignored.

Operational lesson

Tribunals silently ignore AI-fabricated statutes and misapplied precedents; arguments collapse without challenge.

Record details

CourtCRT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMar 28, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeArguments ignored

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

Arguments ignored

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Party referred to CRTA section 50(2) as authority for awarding special costs. There is no section 50(2) in the CRTA.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Party relied on Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 to make a point about the harm of digitally manipulated content when the case is actually about language rights.
Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited cases which do not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited cases which do not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in AQ v. BT?: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs. Outcome: Arguments ignored.
Why does AQ v. BT matter for legal AI risk?: Tribunals silently ignore AI-fabricated statutes and misapplied precedents; arguments collapse without challenge.
What does the public record establish about AQ v. BT?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this AQ v. BT summary?: The recorded source is decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Whitaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS1144CRT · May 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Siemens v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3699CRT · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs. Outcome: Arguments ignored.

Operational lesson

Tribunals silently ignore AI-fabricated statutes and misapplied precedents; arguments collapse without challenge.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Party referred to CRTA section 50(2) as authority for awarding special costs. There is no section 50(2) in the CRTA.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Party relied on Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 to make a point about the harm of digitally manipulated content when the case is actually about language rights.

Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited cases which do not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in AQ v. BT?

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs. Outcome: Arguments ignored.

Why does AQ v. BT matter for legal AI risk?

Tribunals silently ignore AI-fabricated statutes and misapplied precedents; arguments collapse without challenge.

What does the public record establish about AQ v. BT?

Which source supports this AQ v. BT summary?

The recorded source is decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.