Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
J.R.V. v. N.L.V.
SC British Columbia · Jun 19, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's written argument cited non-existent case law generated by AI; the Court labeled these 'hallucinations' and imposed $200 costs, noting some but not all accusations by the claimant were correct. Outcome: Costs to the claimant in the amount of $200.. In the case of J.R.V. v. N.L.V., the respondent, appearing in person, used a generative AI tool to prepare parts of her written argument. This resulted in the inclusion of citations to non-existent cases, known as 'hallucinations.' The claimant sought costs due to the need to research and respond to these false citations.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Costs to the claimant in the amount of $200.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Even sympathetic pro-se AI users pay costs — when opposing counsel hallucinates, document time spent chasing ghost cites for fee-shifting.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's written argument cited non-existent case law generated by AI; the Court labeled these 'hallucinations' and imposed $200 costs, noting some but not all accusations by the claimant were correct. Outcome: Costs to the claimant in the amount of $200.. In the case of J.R.V. v. N.L.V., the respondent, appearing in person, used a generative AI tool to prepare parts of her written argument. This resulted in the inclusion of citations to non-existent cases, known as 'hallucinations.' The claimant sought costs due to the need to research and respond to these false citations. The court acknowledged the issue but noted that the respondent was not represented by counsel and was unaware of the AI's capability to generate false citations. Moreover, the claimant was wrong as to the alleged non-existence of some citations. The court ordered the respondent to pay $200 in costs to the claimant.
Operational lesson
Even sympathetic pro-se AI users pay costs — when opposing counsel hallucinates, document time spent chasing ghost cites for fee-shifting.
Record details
CourtSC British Columbia
Jurisdictioninternational
Circuit4th Circuit
DateJun 19, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCosts to the claimant in the amount of $200.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Costs to the claimant in the amount of $200.
Correction behavior
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's written argument cited non-existent case law generated by AI; the Court labeled these 'hallucinations' and imposed $200 costs, noting some but not all accusations by the claimant were correct.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in J.R.V. v. N.L.V.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's written argument cited non-existent case law generated by AI; the Court labeled these 'hallucinations' and imposed $200 costs, noting some but not all accusations by the claimant were correct. Outcome: Costs to the claimant in the amount of $200.. In the case of J.R.V. v. N.L.V., the respondent, appearing in person, used a generative AI tool to prepare parts of her written argument. This resulted in the inclusion of citations to non-existent cases, known as 'hallucinations.' The claimant sought costs due to the need to research and respond to these false citations.…
- Why does J.R.V. v. N.L.V. matter for legal AI risk?
- Even sympathetic pro-se AI users pay costs — when opposing counsel hallucinates, document time spent chasing ghost cites for fee-shifting.
- What does the public record establish about J.R.V. v. N.L.V.?
- 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 J.R.V. v. N.L.V. 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.