Barrette v Wevers
KB Alberta · Dec 8, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- KB Alberta
- Record ID
- barrette-v-wevers-2025-12-08
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the appellant to pay enhanced costs, including a specific $1,000 penalty per set of respondents for the use of AI-fabricated authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$3,000
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Alberta courts are imposing enhanced costs against pro-se appellants for AI-fabricated authorities and regulations.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$3,000
- Procedural posture
- Costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal of a summary dismissal of a civil claim.
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
The court noted the appellant's use of AI tools to generate authorities.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.