AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesGalang v. Canada (Attorney General)
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 85/100. 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

Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)

B.C. Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationstorttrialStruck Filing
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The B.C. Supreme Court struck a portion of the plaintiff's Notice of Civil Claim after finding it contained AI-generated fabricated case law. The court ordered the plaintiff to verify the existence of all authorities cited in future filings if using AI tools.

Why the court cared
The court determined that the inclusion of non-existent cases, attributed to generative AI, necessitated striking the pleading section to ensure the integrity of the court's record and to enforce the requirement that all cited authorities be verified.
Why it matters now
This case illustrates the judiciary's proactive response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings, establishing a clear procedural requirement for litigants to verify the existence of all cited authorities when using AI tools.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil claim against the Attorney General of Canada and Fraser Health Authority, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Civil Claim containing references to non-existent court decisions, which the court identified as likely generated by artificial intelligence. The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike Part 3 of the claim due to its excessive length and the inclusion of these fabricated citations. Justice Dion granted the application, ordering Part 3 struck with leave to amend. The court further mandated that if the plaintiff utilizes artificial intelligence for drafting, she must verify the existence of all cited cases and rules prior to filing. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended claim removing the fabricated references.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates the judiciary's proactive response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings, establishing a clear procedural requirement for litigants to verify the existence of all cited authorities when using AI tools.

Record details

CourtB.C. Supreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 31, 2026
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomePart 3 of the plaintiff's Notice of Civil Claim was struck with leave to amend, and the plaintiff was ordered to verify all AI-assisted citations.
Known amountCA$250
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced the use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting.

Procedural posture

The matter involved an application to strike Part 3 of the Notice of Civil Claim, which was heard by Justice Dion on October 3, 2025, resulting in a formal order striking the section.

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 | Original Notice of Civil Claim contained references to non-existent court decisions appearing to be AI-generated; AGC raised the issue and Justice Dion ordered Part 3 struck and that any AI-assisted citations be verified prior to filing; plaintiff removed those references in amended pleadings.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)?
The B.C. Supreme Court struck a portion of the plaintiff's Notice of Civil Claim after finding it contained AI-generated fabricated case law. The court ordered the plaintiff to verify the existence of all authorities cited in future filings if using AI tools.
Why does Galang v. Canada (Attorney General) matter for legal AI risk?
This case illustrates the judiciary's proactive response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings, establishing a clear procedural requirement for litigants to verify the existence of all cited authorities when using AI tools.
What does the public record establish about Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)?
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.
Which source supports this Galang v. Canada (Attorney General) 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.

Ali Jabbari v. Parviz Omidvar, et al.C.D. California · Aug 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Bisher v. Civic, et al.SC Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Owen v. Askew et al.D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ammann v. Markel Insurance CompanyN.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gully v VargheseSC New York · May 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)