J.R.V. v. N.L.V.
SC British Columbia · Jun 19, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC British Columbia
- Record ID
- jrv-v-nlv-2025-06-19
- Observed outcome
- The respondent was ordered to pay $200 in costs to the claimant within 30 days.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$200
Why this matter warrants attention
The court ordered the self-represented respondent to pay $200 in costs to the claimant after she included AI-generated, non-existent case citations in her written submissions. The court mitigated the sanction because the respondent was unrepresented, lacked awareness of AI risks, and the claimant had incorrectly identified some valid citations as fake.
The court reasoned that while citing fake cases is an abuse of process, the respondent's pro se status and lack of awareness of AI risks warranted a reduced cost award. Additionally, the court noted the claimant's counsel incorrectly identified some real cases as fake, which mitigated the respondent's culpability.
Even sympathetic pro-se AI users pay costs — when opposing counsel hallucinates, document time spent chasing ghost cites for fee-shifting.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified generative AI program
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$200
- Procedural posture
- Post-hearing decision on cross-applications for variation of a final matrimonial order, including a specific determination on costs related to AI-generated filings.
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
The respondent used a generative AI program.
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 and accuracy of every case citation generated by AI tools before submission.
- Document time spent addressing opposing counsel's or a pro se party's AI-generated errors to support potential cost applications.
- Exercise caution when alleging that opposing citations are fake, as incorrect accusations may mitigate the court's willingness to award full costs.