Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0JNGV17Generated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Chan v. British Columbia

CA British Columbia · Nov 28, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
CA British Columbia
Record ID
chan-v-british-columbia-2025-11-28
Observed outcome
The court quashed parts of the appeals, ordered $10,000 in security for costs, denied a sealing order and fee waiver, and awarded $4,000 in costs for the hearing.
Known monetary consequence
CA$14,000
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court ordered the appellant to post $10,000 in security for costs of the appeals, stayed the proceedings pending payment, and awarded $4,000 in costs for the hearing. The court also quashed portions of the appeal and denied the appellant's applications for a sealing order and a fee waiver.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated case law that the court found did not exist; court cited this misconduct in ordering security for costs.

Why it matters now

Courts now order security-for-costs when AI-fabricated citations surface — verify before filing to avoid cost exposure.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Administrative
  • Appellate
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
CA$14,000
Procedural posture
Chambers application before the British Columbia Court of Appeal to quash aspects of an appeal, order security for costs, and address applications for a sealing order and fee waiver.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.