Chen v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3094
Civil Resolution Tribunal · May 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Civil Resolution Tribunal
- Record ID
- chen-v-the-owners-strata-plan-lms3094-2026-05-27
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims and ordered her to pay the strata corporation $22,145.55 for repair expenses.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$22,146
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal Member identified the applicant's citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations because they did not support the legal bases presented. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to address those specific arguments, relying on established precedent that it is not required to address arguments with no basis in law.
The Tribunal Member reasoned that the applicant's citations were likely AI-generated hallucinations because they did not support her legal arguments. Citing AQ v BW, 2025 BCCRT 907, the Member held that the Tribunal is not obligated to address arguments that lack a basis in law.
This case illustrates the judicial response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It reinforces that tribunals may summarily disregard arguments based on non-existent legal authority, emphasizing the necessity for litigants to verify the accuracy of all cited statutes and case law.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$22,146
- Procedural posture
- The Civil Resolution Tribunal issued a final decision on the merits, dismissing the applicant's claims and allowing the respondent's counterclaim for $22,145.55.
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 Member characterized the applicant's 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.