Hakemi v. ICBC
BC CRT · Jul 24, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BC CRT
- Record ID
- hakemi-v-icbc-2025-07-24
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for interest, health care and rehabilitation benefits, permanent impairment compensation, and income replacement benefits.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Fabricated statutory citations are as disqualifying as fake caselaw; verify every section number against primary sources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Final decision on accident benefits claims following written submissions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Tribunal inferred hallucinations were created by AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.