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 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Krivaia v. Hungerford
B.C. SC · May 5, 2026
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' pleadings cited non-existent cases generated by AI; Court found these were fictitious authorities and that Plaintiffs failed to verify authenticity.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in B.C. SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' pleadings cited non-existent cases generated by AI; Court found these were fictitious authorities and that Plaintiffs failed to verify authenticity.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in B.C. SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtB.C. SC
Jurisdictioninternational
Circuit4th Circuit
DateMay 5, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' pleadings cited non-existent cases generated by AI; Court found these were fictitious authorities and that Plaintiffs failed to verify authenticity.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court treated Plaintiffs' reliance on multiple AI‑hallucinated authorities as misconduct deserving of rebuke and a factor supporting uplift costs.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Krivaia v. Hungerford?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' pleadings cited non-existent cases generated by AI; Court found these were fictitious authorities and that Plaintiffs failed to verify authenticity.
- Why does Krivaia v. Hungerford matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in B.C. SC, 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.