Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-01HSQOOGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

DJ v SN

CA Alberta · Nov 19, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
CA Alberta
Record ID
dj-v-sn-2025-11-19
Observed outcome
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay an additional $500 in costs to the respondent.
Known monetary consequence
CA$500
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Court of Appeal of Alberta imposed a $500 cost sanction on a self-represented litigant for including three AI-generated, non-existent legal authorities in her appellate factum. The court held that this conduct violated established practice notices regarding the use of large language models and warranted a monetary penalty to uphold the integrity of court proceedings.

Why the decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Family
  • Appellate
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
CA$500
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a chambers decision regarding parenting and child support orders.
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

The appellant acknowledged the authorities were generated through her use of AI tools.

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.