Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0RZ1S4QGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Howse v. Coulton

BC CRT · Jan 29, 2026

Jurisdiction
international
Court
BC CRT
Record ID
howse-v-coulton-2026-01-29
Observed outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the applicants' claims, finding they failed to prove the respondent was liable for the dog attack.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Tort
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Small claims dispute adjudicated by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) via written submissions.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The Tribunal identified the citation as a likely AI-generated hallucination.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.