Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.
BC CRT · May 28, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BC CRT
- Record ID
- blanes-v-stellers-jay-academy-inc-2026-05-28
- Observed outcome
- The applicant's claims for negligence and breach of contract were dismissed; however, the respondent was ordered to return a deposit of $2,120 plus interest and partial tribunal fees.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal identified that the applicant relied on non-existent cases and misrepresented legal authorities, which it characterized as likely AI-generated hallucinations. While the Tribunal noted that its rules prohibit such submissions, it did not issue a formal sanction or penalty for this specific conduct, as the respondent did not seek reimbursement for related expenses.
The Tribunal reasoned that the cited cases (S.J. v. N.N., 2012 ABQB 75; Zaky v. 2285771 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONSC 5532) did not exist and that the citation of Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, was misleading, concluding these were likely AI-generated hallucinations.
This case illustrates the Tribunal's identification of AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings and highlights the procedural gap where rules exist to address such conduct, but enforcement remains contingent on a party's request for related expenses.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Small claims adjudication before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) resulting in a final decision on the merits.
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 Tribunal refers to the material as generated by artificial intelligence without naming a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.