Blaser v. Campbell
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Steve Finlay; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 15, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The tribunal found two cases cited by the respondent were likely AI-generated hallucinations because it could not locate them. It noted in passing that courts and earlier tribunal decisions have discussed the risks of relying on unregulated generative AI, but it gave the respondent no warning and imposed nothing for the citations.
- Why the court cared
- The tribunal member determined the cited cases were hallucinations because they could not be located in legal databases, and applied a common-sense approach to contractual interpretation by reading the contract as a whole rather than in isolation.
- Why it matters now
- BC tribunals now routinely flag AI hallucinations sua sponte; do not assume low-stakes matters escape scrutiny.
Why this matter is tracked
In a small claims dispute before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, respondent Melanie Campbell submitted two cases to support the argument that audio-visual equipment constituted chattels rather than fixtures. The tribunal member was unable to locate these authorities and concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations. In passing, the tribunal noted that courts and earlier tribunal decisions have discussed the risk of relying on unregulated generative AI; it directed nothing at the respondent on that account. Ultimately, the tribunal found the respondent breached the contract of purchase and sale by removing specific audio-visual components, though it awarded only nominal damages due to the age of the equipment and the applicants' failure to provide sufficient evidence of replacement value.
BC tribunals now routinely flag AI hallucinations sua sponte; do not assume low-stakes matters escape scrutiny.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Tribunal identified citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations.
Small claims adjudication before the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent Melanie Campbell cited a case allegedly holding speakers/entertainment systems are chattels; the tribunal could not locate it and found it likely an AI-generated hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent Melanie Campbell cited a second case allegedly holding speakers/entertainment systems are chattels; the tribunal could not locate it and found it likely an AI-generated hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Blaser v. Campbell?
- The tribunal found two cases cited by the respondent were likely AI-generated hallucinations because it could not locate them. It noted in passing that courts and earlier tribunal decisions have discussed the risks of relying on unregulated generative AI, but it gave the respondent no warning and imposed nothing for the citations.
- Why does Blaser v. Campbell matter for legal AI risk?
- BC tribunals now routinely flag AI hallucinations sua sponte; do not assume low-stakes matters escape scrutiny.
- What does the public record establish about Blaser v. Campbell?
- 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 Blaser v. Campbell 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.
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: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.