Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62
N.S. C.A. · Aug 12, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI appended a certified court transcriber certification page (name, NS registration number and signature of Sue Loney) to the September and October 2025 transcripts that were not certified. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The self-represented appellant admitted using unspecified AI tools to transcribe and assemble his appeal book. The AI-generated transcripts included material inaccuracies and, according to the appellant, appended a certified court-transcriber certificate (including name, registration number and signature) belonging to Sue Loney. The respondent discovered 39 discrepancies and the transcriber denied certifying those transcripts. The Court found the appellant knowingly filed misleading certifications and uncertified transcripts, rejected reliance on an AI excuse, dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect, and awarded indemnity costs of $20,000.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Adverse Costs Order. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in N.S. C.A.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI appended a certified court transcriber certification page (name, NS registration number and signature of Sue Loney) to the September and October 2025 transcripts that were not certified. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The self-represented appellant admitted using unspecified AI tools to transcribe and assemble his appeal book. The AI-generated transcripts included material inaccuracies and, according to the appellant, appended a certified court-transcriber certificate (including name, registration number and signature) belonging to Sue Loney. The respondent discovered 39 discrepancies and the transcriber denied certifying those transcripts. The Court found the appellant knowingly filed misleading certifications and uncertified transcripts, rejected reliance on an AI excuse, dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect, and awarded indemnity costs of $20,000.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in N.S. C.A.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI appended a certified court transcriber certification page (name, NS registration number and signature of Sue Loney) to the September and October 2025 transcripts that were not certified.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-produced transcripts contained material inaccuracies and 'phantom testimony' not present in the certified audio-based transcript provided by the respondent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62?
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI appended a certified court transcriber certification page (name, NS registration number and signature of Sue Loney) to the September and October 2025 transcripts that were not certified. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The self-represented appellant admitted using unspecified AI tools to transcribe and assemble his appeal book. The AI-generated transcripts included material inaccuracies and, according to the appellant, appended a certified court-transcriber certificate (including name, registration number and signature) belonging to Sue Loney. The respondent discovered 39 discrepancies and the transcriber denied certifying those transcripts. The Court found the appellant knowingly filed misleading certifications and uncertified transcripts, rejected reliance on an AI excuse, dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect, and awarded indemnity costs of $20,000.
- Why does Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in N.S. C.A.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62?
- 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 Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62 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.