Krivaia v. Hungerford
SC British Columbia · Mar 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC British Columbia
- Record ID
- krivaia-v-hungerford-2026-03-11
- Observed outcome
- The application to strike the action for abuse of process was denied, though the court awarded costs to the defendants due to the plaintiffs' failure to verify their legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Application by defendants under Rule 9-5(1) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for abuse of process.
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 court refers to the authorities as AI-hallucinated.
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, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.