Barrette v Wevers
KB Alberta · Dec 8, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta imposed an additional $1,000 in costs against a pro se appellant for each of the three sets of respondents, totaling $3,000 in specific penalties, for citing two non-existent cases and one non-existent regulation generated by AI in his submissions.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | One non-existent case authority cited in the appellant's factum and oral submissions; the Court found it fabricated || Fabricated: Case Law | A second non-existent case authority cited by the appellant; the Court treated it as fabricated || Fabricated: Legal Norm | A non-existent regulation cited by the appellant (a fabricated legal norm); the Court treated it as a fake authority and included it in the assessment of enhanced costs.
- Why it matters now
- Alberta courts are imposing enhanced costs against pro-se appellants for AI-fabricated authorities and regulations.
Why this matter is tracked
In a costs endorsement, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta addressed a pro se appellant's use of AI-generated fabricated authorities. The appellant cited two non-existent cases and one non-existent regulation in his factum and oral submissions. The Court, citing the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in DJ v SN, 2025 ABCA 383, determined that the appellant's failure to adhere to the October 2023 Notice regarding the use of large language models warranted a financial penalty. The Court assessed an additional $1,000 in costs for each of the three sets of respondents as a sanction for the use of these fake authorities, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of court processes.
Alberta courts are imposing enhanced costs against pro-se appellants for AI-fabricated authorities and regulations.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the appellant's use of AI tools to generate authorities.
Costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal of a summary dismissal of a civil claim.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | One non-existent case authority cited in the appellant's factum and oral submissions; the Court found it fabricated
- Fabricated: Case Law | A second non-existent case authority cited by the appellant; the Court treated it as fabricated
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | A non-existent regulation cited by the appellant (a fabricated legal norm); the Court treated it as a fake authority and included it in the assessment of enhanced costs.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Barrette v Wevers?
- The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta imposed an additional $1,000 in costs against a pro se appellant for each of the three sets of respondents, totaling $3,000 in specific penalties, for citing two non-existent cases and one non-existent regulation generated by AI in his submissions.
- Why does Barrette v Wevers matter for legal AI risk?
- Alberta courts are imposing enhanced costs against pro-se appellants for AI-fabricated authorities and regulations.
- What does the public record establish about Barrette v Wevers?
- 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 Barrette v Wevers 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.