Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970
Civil Resolution Tribunal · Feb 14, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims after finding that the strata's refusal to retroactively approve unauthorized alterations was not significantly unfair. The decision-maker explicitly rejected the applicants' reliance on ten case law authorities, nine of which were nonexistent and one of which was misrepresented, identifying them as likely hallucinations from Microsoft Copilot.
- Why the court cared
- The tribunal reasoned that the applicants failed to prove significant unfairness because they purchased the unit with notice of the strata's prior refusal and the existence of a stop-work order. Regarding the AI-generated content, the tribunal noted that nine cited cases did not exist and the tenth, while existing, was irrelevant to the issue of unauthorized alterations, leading the member to conclude the citations were AI hallucinations.
- Why it matters now
- Microsoft Copilot hallucinates case citations as reliably as ChatGPT — no consumer AI tool is safe for legal research.
Why this matter is tracked
In a strata property dispute, the self-represented applicants sought an order requiring the strata corporation to retroactively approve unauthorized alterations to their unit, specifically the addition of a loft. The applicants submitted ten case law authorities to support their position, nine of which were nonexistent and one of which was misrepresented. The tribunal member identified these as likely hallucinations generated by Microsoft Copilot. The tribunal found that the applicants lacked a reasonable expectation of approval, noting they purchased the unit with full knowledge of the strata's prior refusal and the existence of a stop-work order. The tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the strata's refusal was not significantly unfair, and explicitly disregarded the AI-generated citations.
Microsoft Copilot hallucinates case citations as reliably as ChatGPT — no consumer AI tool is safe for legal research.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The applicants identified the source of their cases as a conversation with Copilot.
Final decision on the merits by the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissing the applicants' claims.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a nonexistent case (one of nine AI-sourced items without legal citations); tribunal found it does not exist and is likely a Copilot hallucination.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicants misrepresented Jordison (2013) as supporting that strata cannot force removal of unauthorized alterations; tribunal noted the three 2013 Jordison decisions exist but none concern unauthorized alterations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970?
- The tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims after finding that the strata's refusal to retroactively approve unauthorized alterations was not significantly unfair. The decision-maker explicitly rejected the applicants' reliance on ten case law authorities, nine of which were nonexistent and one of which was misrepresented, identifying them as likely hallucinations from Microsoft Copilot.
- Why does Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970 matter for legal AI risk?
- Microsoft Copilot hallucinates case citations as reliably as ChatGPT — no consumer AI tool is safe for legal research.
- What does the public record establish about Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970?
- 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 Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970 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.