Choi v. Slopinski
SC British Columbia · Nov 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC British Columbia
- Record ID
- choi-v-slopinski-2025-11-10
- Observed outcome
- The plaintiff's claim was dismissed without leave to amend, and the application for cross-examination was dismissed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC British Columbia, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Other
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.