Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)
CRT · Jul 16, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety. The decision-maker explicitly identified the applicant's reliance on likely AI-generated citations and misrepresented legal authorities as a failure to provide a valid legal basis for her arguments, ultimately ruling that the applicant failed to prove negligence or breach of contract.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal found that the applicant's cited authorities either did not exist or did not support the propositions claimed. Specifically, the Tribunal identified that a cited case (Panchal v. Singh) was a hallucination of a different case (Roofix Services Inc. v. Mike Stanfield). Consequently, the Tribunal determined it had no obligation to address these arguments and proceeded to evaluate the merits based on the remaining evidence, finding the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for professional negligence.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal submissions without verification. It provides a clear example of a tribunal identifying and discounting hallucinated citations while maintaining a focus on the underlying evidentiary burden.
Why this matter is tracked
In a small claims dispute regarding alleged negligent dermal filler treatment, the applicant, Krystle Giggs, submitted legal arguments and citations that the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) identified as likely AI-generated. The Tribunal found that the applicant cited non-existent or misrepresented authorities, including a case citation that actually referred to a different subject matter (Roofix Services Inc. v. Mike Stanfield). The Tribunal noted that it has no obligation to address arguments lacking a legal basis. On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, finding that the applicant failed to provide necessary expert evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal submissions without verification. It provides a clear example of a tribunal identifying and discounting hallucinated citations while maintaining a focus on the underlying evidentiary burden.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Tribunal identified the citations as likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.
Small claims adjudication by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) conducted via written submissions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Panchal v. Singh, 2020 BCCRT 949' as authority for negligent eyebrow microblading; Tribunal found that the neutral citation corresponds to Roofix Services Inc. v. Mike Stanfield (dba Kitchen Cabinets for Less), 2020 BCCRT 949, a different subject matter.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant referenced several sections of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and other prior CRT decisions that either do not exist or do not say what she claimed; Tribunal characterized these as likely AI-generated or misleading.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)?
- The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety. The decision-maker explicitly identified the applicant's reliance on likely AI-generated citations and misrepresented legal authorities as a failure to provide a valid legal basis for her arguments, ultimately ruling that the applicant failed to prove negligence or breach of contract.
- Why does Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics) matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal submissions without verification. It provides a clear example of a tribunal identifying and discounting hallucinated citations while maintaining a focus on the underlying evidentiary burden.
- What does the public record establish about Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)?
- 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 Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics) 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.