Blaser v. Campbell
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Civil Resolution Tribunal
- Record ID
- blaser-v-campbell-2025-07-15
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract but awarded only $100 in damages due to the age of the items and lack of evidence regarding replacement value; the tribunal dismissed claims against the second respondent.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
BC tribunals now routinely flag AI hallucinations sua sponte; do not assume low-stakes matters escape scrutiny.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Small claims adjudication before the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia.
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
Tribunal identified citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
- 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.