Howse v. Coulton
BC CRT · Jan 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Tribunal Member identified a citation provided by the respondent, 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111', as a likely AI-generated hallucination, stating that no such case exists. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's jurisdictional argument based on this fabricated authority and proceeded to resolve the dispute on its merits.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111' to argue claims beyond CRT limits must be transferred; Tribunal found no such case exists and characterized the citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination.
- Why it matters now
- Jurisdictional arguments built on hallucinated appellate authority collapse on verification; cite-check before relying on procedural case law.
Why this matter is tracked
In a small claims dispute regarding a dog attack, the respondent argued that the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) lacked jurisdiction, citing a non-existent case, 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111', to suggest that claims exceeding the CRT's monetary limit must be transferred. The Tribunal Member, Jeffrey Drozdiak, explicitly identified this citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination, noting that no such case exists. The Tribunal clarified that under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, parties are entitled to abandon amounts exceeding the $5,000 limit to remain within the CRT's jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims on the merits, finding they failed to prove the respondent was liable for negligence or under the Occupiers Liability Act.
Jurisdictional arguments built on hallucinated appellate authority collapse on verification; cite-check before relying on procedural case law.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Tribunal identified the citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination.
Small claims dispute adjudicated by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) via written submissions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111' to argue claims beyond CRT limits must be transferred; Tribunal found no such case exists and characterized the citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Howse v. Coulton?
- The Tribunal Member identified a citation provided by the respondent, 'Re MacKinnon, 2016 BCCA 111', as a likely AI-generated hallucination, stating that no such case exists. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's jurisdictional argument based on this fabricated authority and proceeded to resolve the dispute on its merits.
- Why does Howse v. Coulton matter for legal AI risk?
- Jurisdictional arguments built on hallucinated appellate authority collapse on verification; cite-check before relying on procedural case law.
- What does the public record establish about Howse v. Coulton?
- 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 Howse v. Coulton 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.