Duarte v. City of Richmond
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal · Dec 18, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
- Record ID
- duarte-v-city-of-richmond-2024-12-18
- Observed outcome
- The complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and the Tribunal issued a formal caution regarding the use of generative AI in legal submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal issued a formal caution to parties regarding the use of generative AI after a pro se litigant submitted fabricated case law. The Tribunal held that parties must critically assess AI-generated information and verify all citations, noting that failure to do so may lead to costs or other serious consequences.
The Tribunal reasoned that it could not rely on the cited authorities because they could not be located and appeared fabricated. It further reasoned that the 'R' style citation was inconsistent with the civil nature of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and that the complainant failed to follow Practice Directions requiring neutral citations. The Tribunal concluded that parties have an affirmative duty to verify AI-produced information to maintain the integrity of the justice system.
Tribunal cautions against AI use set precedent — expect costs next time lawyers do the same.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application to dismiss a human rights complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code.
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 explicitly referenced the potential use of generative artificial intelligence.
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.