HomeCasesBlanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.

BC CRT · May 28, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in BC CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in BC CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtBC CRT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 28, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

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 | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as Zaky v. 2285771 Ontario Inc. o/a Playtime Bowl & Entertainment, 2021 ONSC 5532; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 in support of a legal principle the Tribunal found the authority did not actually support, concluding it was likely a misleading AI-produced result or misapplication.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in BC CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.?: 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 Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc. 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.

Langen v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS5455BC CRT · Apr 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations White v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3946BC CRT · Feb 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Obermann v. Spring Financial Inc.BC CRT · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Margolles v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2477BC CRT · Apr 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata PlanBC CRT · Jan 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Wyszynski v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1721BC CRT · Jun 1, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in BC CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as Zaky v. 2285771 Ontario Inc. o/a Playtime Bowl & Entertainment, 2021 ONSC 5532; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant cited Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 in support of a legal principle the Tribunal found the authority did not actually support, concluding it was likely a misleading AI-produced result or misapplication.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on a non-existent case cited as S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Tribunal found it did not exist and likely generated by AI. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in BC CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.?

Which source supports this Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc. 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.