HomeCasesGiggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)

CRT · Jul 16, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtCRT

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

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)?: 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.
Why does Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics) matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CRT, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
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.

Whitaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS1144CRT · May 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations AQ v. BTCRT · Mar 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Siemens v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3699CRT · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Blackburn v. United StatesW.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivicW.D. Oklahoma · Mar 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Nelson L. Bruce v. The United StatesD. South Carolina · Feb 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

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)?

Why does Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics) matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)?

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.