AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesChoi v. Slopinski
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Choi v. Slopinski

SC British Columbia · Nov 10, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court denied leave to amend the pleadings and dismissed the plaintiff's application for cross-examination, awarding costs to the defendants.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on 'Mullins v. McMaster University, 2020 ONSC 2403' (cited as a Supreme Court of Canada decision); defendants' counsel advised the court it is not a real case and the court noted it is not real.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC British Columbia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In this Supreme Court of British Columbia proceeding, the plaintiff, a student at University Canada West, filed a claim alleging plagiarism by instructors and inadequate institutional response. The defendants applied to strike the claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court found the plaintiff's pleadings were vague, failed to establish necessary elements for negligence or breach of contract, and relied on inapplicable statutes. The court dismissed the claim without leave to amend, noting that the plaintiff's grievances regarding academic policy were matters of academic judgment. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's application for cross-examination. The decision highlights the court's role in managing frivolous or procedurally deficient filings, particularly those lacking clear legal foundations or actionable claims.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC British Columbia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtSC British Columbia
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 10, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe plaintiff's claim was dismissed without leave to amend, and the application for cross-examination was dismissed.
Known amountCA$0
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

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

Procedural posture

The matter was heard in chambers on an application by the defendants to strike the plaintiff's Amended Notice of Civil Claim (ANOCC) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on 'Mullins v. McMaster University, 2020 ONSC 2403' (cited as a Supreme Court of Canada decision); defendants' counsel advised the court it is not a real case and the court noted it is not real.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Choi v. Slopinski?
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court denied leave to amend the pleadings and dismissed the plaintiff's application for cross-examination, awarding costs to the defendants.
Why does Choi v. Slopinski matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC British Columbia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Choi v. Slopinski?
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.
Which source supports this Choi v. Slopinski 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.

Krivaia v. HungerfordSC British Columbia · Mar 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsChun v. Vancouver Whitecaps FC LPSC British Columbia · Mar 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsZou v. Miracon Development Inc.SC British Columbia · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJ.R.V. v. N.L.V.SC British Columbia · Jun 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSingh v. Director of the Residential Tenancy BranchSC British Columbia · Mar 23, 2026same court · pro se + trialCharlie Reyes v. Bryce Bailey, et al.D. New Mexico · Aug 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)