Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
AQ v. BW
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 4, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: mediumpro sefabricated quotestorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Legal Norm | Both parties relied on a hallucinated version of CRTA section 92. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. In the case AQ v. BW, the applicant AQ claimed damages for the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image by the respondent BW. Both parties were self-represented. The tribunal found that BW shared an intimate image of AQ without consent, violating the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). BW attempted to defend their actions by citing a fabricated version of CRTA section 92, which was identified as a hallucination likely generated by artificial intelligence. Judge held:"16. I have considered my obligation to give sufficient reasons.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- BC CRT now awards time-wasted costs for AI-fabricated statutory text; hallucinated norms are as sanctionable as fake cases.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Legal Norm | Both parties relied on a hallucinated version of CRTA section 92. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. In the case AQ v. BW, the applicant AQ claimed damages for the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image by the respondent BW. Both parties were self-represented. The tribunal found that BW shared an intimate image of AQ without consent, violating the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). BW attempted to defend their actions by citing a fabricated version of CRTA section 92, which was identified as a hallucination likely generated by artificial intelligence. Judge held:"16. I have considered my obligation to give sufficient reasons. I do not consider that obligation to include responding to arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law. I accept that artificial intelligence can be a useful tool to help people find the right language to present their arguments, if used properly. However, people who blindly use artificial intelligence often end up bombarding the CRT with endless legal arguments. They cannot reasonably expect the CRT to address them all. So, while I have reviewed all the parties’ materials and considered all their arguments, I have decided against addressing many of the issues they raise. If I do not address a particular argument in this decision, it is because the argument lacks any merit, is about something plainly irrelevant, or both."The tribunal dismissed BW's defenses as baseless and awarded AQ $5,000 in damages and an additional $1,000 for time spent due to BW's submission of irrelevant evidence. The tribunal emphasized that arguments concocted by AI without legal basis would not be addressed.
Operational lesson
BC CRT now awards time-wasted costs for AI-fabricated statutory text; hallucinated norms are as sanctionable as fake cases.
Record details
CourtCivil Resolution Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 4, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
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
Monetary Sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Both parties relied on a hallucinated version of CRTA section 92.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in AQ v. BW?
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Both parties relied on a hallucinated version of CRTA section 92. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. In the case AQ v. BW, the applicant AQ claimed damages for the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image by the respondent BW. Both parties were self-represented. The tribunal found that BW shared an intimate image of AQ without consent, violating the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). BW attempted to defend their actions by citing a fabricated version of CRTA section 92, which was identified as a hallucination likely generated by artificial intelligence. Judge held:"16. I have considered my obligation to give sufficient reasons.…
- Why does AQ v. BW matter for legal AI risk?
- BC CRT now awards time-wasted costs for AI-fabricated statutory text; hallucinated norms are as sanctionable as fake cases.
- What does the public record establish about AQ v. BW?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this AQ v. BW 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.