HomeCasesDJ v SN

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

DJ v SN

CA Alberta · Nov 19, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's factum cited three non-existent authorities generated by AI; appellant admitted at hearing they were AI-generated and the court imposed additional costs. Outcome: Additional Costs.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's factum cited three non-existent authorities generated by AI; appellant admitted at hearing they were AI-generated and the court imposed additional costs.
Why it matters now: Admission of AI use at hearing now draws cost orders — counsel who conceal face far worse.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admission of AI use at hearing now draws cost orders — counsel who conceal face far worse.

Record details

CourtCA Alberta

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 19, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdditional Costs

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Additional Costs

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 factum cited three non-existent authorities generated by AI; appellant admitted at hearing they were AI-generated and the court imposed additional costs.

Questions this record answers

What happened in DJ v SN?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's factum cited three non-existent authorities generated by AI; appellant admitted at hearing they were AI-generated and the court imposed additional costs. Outcome: Additional Costs.
Why does DJ v SN matter for legal AI risk?: Admission of AI use at hearing now draws cost orders — counsel who conceal face far worse.
What does the public record establish about DJ v SN?: 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 DJ v SN 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.

HDO v MDFCA Alberta · Feb 17, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Iyer v NazirCA Alberta · Mar 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Barari v. BurgessCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Villanueva v. BowersCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 11, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified In the Matter of Kevin A. Julien v. Danielle M. ArthurCA New York · May 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Robert Hinton Avery v. Danielle BeauzilCA Florida (4d) · May 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admission of AI use at hearing now draws cost orders — counsel who conceal face far worse.

Questions this record answers

What happened in DJ v SN?

Why does DJ v SN matter for legal AI risk?

Admission of AI use at hearing now draws cost orders — counsel who conceal face far worse.

What does the public record establish about DJ v SN?

Which source supports this DJ v SN 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.