HomeCasesKrivaia v. Hungerford

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Krivaia v. Hungerford

SC British Columbia · Mar 11, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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. Outcome: No strike for abuse of process.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No strike for abuse of process; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No strike for abuse of process in SC British Columbia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No strike for abuse of process in SC British Columbia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtSC British Columbia

Jurisdictioninternational

Circuit4th Circuit

DateMar 11, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeNo strike for abuse of process

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

No strike for abuse of process

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 | 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?: 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. Outcome: No strike for abuse of process.
Why does Krivaia v. Hungerford matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with No strike for abuse of process in SC British Columbia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
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.

Zou v. Miracon Development Inc.SC British Columbia · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Choi v. SlopinskiSC British Columbia · Nov 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations J.R.V. v. N.L.V.SC British Columbia · Jun 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Singh v. Director of the Residential Tenancy BranchSC British Columbia · Mar 23, 2026same court · pro se + trial Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gully v VargheseSC New York · May 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Krivaia v. Hungerford?

Why does Krivaia v. Hungerford matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Krivaia v. Hungerford?

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.