Galang v. Canada (Attorney General)
B.C. Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- B.C. Supreme Court
- Record ID
- galang-v-canada-attorney-general-2026-03-31
- Observed outcome
- Part 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 monetary consequence
- CA$250
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$250
- 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.
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 court referenced the use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law and rules cited in court filings, regardless of the research method used.
- Establish internal review procedures to detect and correct potential AI-generated hallucinations before submission to the court.
- Ensure that all legal research, especially when assisted by AI, is cross-referenced against reliable legal databases.