AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBahrani v Peters
Evidence review: primary document limited. The primary document was retrieved, but one or more case-level facts could not be tied to a page-located passage. The structured corpus baseline is preserved without upgrading those claims.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Bahrani v Peters

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

CA Saskatchewan · Jan 5, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellateMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases. Outcome: Misuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases.
Why it matters now
Appellate courts count non-existent citations one by one and impose opposing-counsel time costs.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases. Outcome: Misuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed.

Operational lesson

Appellate courts count non-existent citations one by one and impose opposing-counsel time costs.

Record details

CourtCA Saskatchewan
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 5, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMisuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed
Known amount3,000 CAD
Professional sanctionNo

Amount read from the primary court record (2026-10-24): open the court record.

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Misuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Bahrani v Peters?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions cited 14 reported decisions; court found 13 were non-existent or had mismatched neutral citations and did not support the propositions; court imposed $3,000 costs to Ms. Peters for time spent locating non-existent cases. Outcome: Misuse of AI taken into account in reducing costs owed.
Why does Bahrani v Peters matter for legal AI risk?
Appellate courts count non-existent citations one by one and impose opposing-counsel time costs.
What does the public record establish about Bahrani v Peters?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Bahrani v Peters 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.

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shaina Matos v. Daniel BadeaCA Illinois (1d) · Oct 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceRyan v. PerezCA Florida (3d) · Sep 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceIn re Marriage of Maslii v. IvanovaCA Illinois (1d) · Sep 22, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceVarela v. HauserCA Arizona (1d) · Sep 17, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceFairrow v. EastenCA Arizona · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceWhitehead v. MooreCA Missouri · Aug 4, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record comes from Canada. See Fictitious citations in Canadian courts for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.