AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesHakemi v. ICBC
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Hakemi v. ICBC

BC CRT · Jul 24, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal identified that the pro se applicant submitted fabricated legal authorities, including a non-existent statutory provision and a non-existent case, which the decision-maker explicitly attributed to AI-generated hallucinations. These fabrications were used to support a claim for interest on vehicle damage, which the Tribunal subsequently dismissed.

Why the court cared
The Tribunal determined that the applicant's cited authorities were non-existent and inferred they were AI-generated hallucinations. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by the accident, that his impairments were permanent, or that he was unable to perform essential employment duties.
Why it matters now
Fabricated statutory citations are as disqualifying as fake caselaw; verify every section number against primary sources.

Why this matter is tracked

In a dispute regarding accident benefits, the applicant, Matin Hakemi, sought compensation for health care, rehabilitation, permanent impairment, and income replacement from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). During the proceedings, the applicant cited a specific section of the Court Order Interest Act and a prior Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) decision to support his claim for interest on vehicle damage. The Tribunal found that the cited statutory provision does not exist and that the referenced CRT decision is non-existent. The Tribunal explicitly identified these citations as likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for interest and ultimately denied his broader claims for benefits due to a lack of evidentiary support regarding causation and impairment.

Operational lesson

Fabricated statutory citations are as disqualifying as fake caselaw; verify every section number against primary sources.

Record details

CourtBC CRT
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 24, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for interest, health care and rehabilitation benefits, permanent impairment compensation, and income replacement benefits.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

Tribunal inferred hallucinations were created by AI.

Procedural posture

Final decision on accident benefits claims following written submissions.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a CRT decision purportedly supporting his claim for interest; Tribunal found the CRT decision does not exist and treated it as a fabricated case, likely AI-generated.
  2. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited 'Court Order Interest Act section 1' as entitling him to pre-judgment interest; Tribunal found the provision does not exist and treated it as a fabricated legislative citation, likely AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Hakemi v. ICBC?
The Tribunal identified that the pro se applicant submitted fabricated legal authorities, including a non-existent statutory provision and a non-existent case, which the decision-maker explicitly attributed to AI-generated hallucinations. These fabrications were used to support a claim for interest on vehicle damage, which the Tribunal subsequently dismissed.
Why does Hakemi v. ICBC matter for legal AI risk?
Fabricated statutory citations are as disqualifying as fake caselaw; verify every section number against primary sources.
What does the public record establish about Hakemi v. ICBC?
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 Hakemi v. ICBC 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.

Rasko v. ICBCBC CRT · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHowse v. CoultonBC CRT · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsObermann v. ICBCBC CRT · Dec 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsBlanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.BC CRT · May 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMargolles v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2477BC CRT · Apr 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLangen v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS5455BC CRT · Apr 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations