Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
BC CRT · Jan 5, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The tribunal dismissed most of the applicant's claims, finding she failed to prove the strata received her cheques. However, the tribunal granted partial relief by ordering the strata to remove a lien administration fee from the applicant's account, as the strata failed to justify the charge under the Strata Property Act.
- Why the court cared
- The tribunal member determined that the applicant's citations of non-existent CRT cases and incorrect statutory sections were likely AI-generated hallucinations. Relying on precedent (AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907), the tribunal held it was not required to address arguments lacking a basis in law. Regarding the lien, the tribunal applied the principle from Kim v. Section 1 of The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1866 (2022 BCCRT 1197), finding that a strata corporation cannot charge a lien administration fee without providing a specific explanation for the fee's nature.
- Why it matters now
- Tribunals silently discount entire arguments when AI-generated citations permeate submissions.
Why this matter is tracked
The applicant, a self-represented strata lot owner, brought a claim against her strata corporation alleging it failed to cash mailed strata fee cheques, leading to improper fines and a lien. During proceedings, the applicant submitted arguments citing non-existent case law and misrepresenting statutory sections of the Strata Property Act. The tribunal member identified these as likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address the arguments based on them. The tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the cheques were mailed or received, upholding the strata's enforcement actions. However, the tribunal ordered the removal of a $656.25 'lien administration fee' because the strata failed to provide a valid explanation for the charge, as required by law.
Tribunals silently discount entire arguments when AI-generated citations permeate submissions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The tribunal identified the applicant's citations as likely AI-generated.
Adjudicated decision by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) following a written hearing.
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 non-existent CRT cases throughout submissions; tribunal identified these as likely AI-generated and declined to address arguments based on them.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant cited SPA sections that were 'clearly incorrect'; tribunal described these incorrect statutory citations as likely AI-generated misrepresentations of legal norms.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan?
- The tribunal dismissed most of the applicant's claims, finding she failed to prove the strata received her cheques. However, the tribunal granted partial relief by ordering the strata to remove a lien administration fee from the applicant's account, as the strata failed to justify the charge under the Strata Property Act.
- Why does Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan matter for legal AI risk?
- Tribunals silently discount entire arguments when AI-generated citations permeate submissions.
- What does the public record establish about Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan 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.
This record comes from Canada. See Fictitious citations in Canadian courts for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.