Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Boonstra v Edmonton (City)
Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · Apr 21, 2026
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions included at least 13 case-law citations generated by ChatGPT that the City identified as non-existent; the Court admonished the appellant and disregarded submissions based on those authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with a recorded judicial response in Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions included at least 13 case-law citations generated by ChatGPT that the City identified as non-existent; the Court admonished the appellant and disregarded submissions based on those authorities.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with a recorded judicial response in Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtCourt of King’s Bench of Alberta
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateApr 21, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions included at least 13 case-law citations generated by ChatGPT that the City identified as non-existent; the Court admonished the appellant and disregarded submissions based on those authorities.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Boonstra v Edmonton (City)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's written submissions included at least 13 case-law citations generated by ChatGPT that the City identified as non-existent; the Court admonished the appellant and disregarded submissions based on those authorities.
- Why does Boonstra v Edmonton (City) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving ChatGPT with a recorded judicial response in Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Boonstra v Edmonton (City)?
- 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 Boonstra v Edmonton (City) 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.