AQ v. BW
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 4, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Civil Resolution Tribunal
- Record ID
- aq-v-bw-2025-07-04
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 in damages and $1,000 for time spent due to the respondent's submission of meritless arguments.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$6,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal sanctioned the respondent by awarding the applicant $1,000 in compensation for time spent, in addition to $5,000 in damages. The tribunal explicitly rejected arguments based on AI-hallucinated statutory text, stating it had no obligation to address submissions concocted by artificial intelligence that lack a legal basis.
The tribunal reasoned that it has no obligation to address arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law. It determined that the respondent's submission of meritless arguments and irrelevant evidence constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an award for the applicant's time spent.
BC CRT now awards time-wasted costs for AI-fabricated statutory text; hallucinated norms are as sanctionable as fake cases.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$6,000
- Procedural posture
- Final decision on damages and compensation for time spent following a dispute over the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
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
Tribunal identified arguments as conjured by artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.