Krivaia v. Hungerford
SC British Columbia · Mar 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court declined to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings for abuse of process despite the inclusion of AI-hallucinated citations. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to verify authorities was a grave mistake rather than an intentional attempt to mislead the court, and therefore did not meet the high threshold required for a finding of abuse of process.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that while citing fictitious cases is an abuse of process, a finding requires assessing the party's knowledge and intent. The court found the plaintiffs lacked intent to mislead, citing their limited English skills and lack of AI knowledge. Consequently, the court held that the failure to verify was a grave mistake rather than an intentional abuse, making a costs award more appropriate than striking the pleadings.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates that courts distinguish between intentional deception and negligent failure to verify AI-generated content. While the court declined to strike the pleadings, it emphasized that pro se litigants remain responsible for verifying authorities and may face financial penalties like costs awards for failing to do so.
Why this matter is tracked
In Krivaia v. Hungerford, the Supreme Court of British Columbia addressed a motion to strike pleadings for abuse of process, specifically regarding the plaintiffs' inclusion of AI-hallucinated case authorities in earlier filings. The court found that while the plaintiffs relied on fictitious cases, they did so without intent to mislead, attributing the error to limited English proficiency and a lack of understanding of generative AI. The court determined that the high threshold for an abuse of process finding was not met and denied the defendants' application to strike the action. However, the court rebuked the plaintiffs for failing to verify their authorities and awarded costs to the defendants, noting that the misconduct warranted such a penalty.
This case illustrates that courts distinguish between intentional deception and negligent failure to verify AI-generated content. While the court declined to strike the pleadings, it emphasized that pro se litigants remain responsible for verifying authorities and may face financial penalties like costs awards for failing to do so.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the authorities as AI-hallucinated.
Application by defendants under Rule 9-5(1) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for abuse of process.
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 | Earlier iterations of the Plaintiffs' pleadings (NOCC, ANOCC, FANOCC) cited case authorities that did not exist and were characterized as AI‑hallucinated; the fictitious references were removed in the Proposed 2FANOCC.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Krivaia v. Hungerford?
- The court declined to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings for abuse of process despite the inclusion of AI-hallucinated citations. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to verify authorities was a grave mistake rather than an intentional attempt to mislead the court, and therefore did not meet the high threshold required for a finding of abuse of process.
- Why does Krivaia v. Hungerford matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates that courts distinguish between intentional deception and negligent failure to verify AI-generated content. While the court declined to strike the pleadings, it emphasized that pro se litigants remain responsible for verifying authorities and may face financial penalties like costs awards for failing to do so.
- What does the public record establish about Krivaia v. Hungerford?
- 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 Krivaia v. Hungerford 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.