Krivaia v. Hungerford
B.C. SC · May 5, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court found that the pro se plaintiffs' reliance on AI-hallucinated, fictitious authorities constituted misconduct worthy of rebuke. While the court accepted that the plaintiffs did not intend to mislead, their failure to verify the authenticity of their citations justified an award of uplift costs (1.5 times the tariff) to the defendants.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that reliance on AI-generated fictitious authorities without verification is a serious oversight and a 'serious affront to justice.' Although the plaintiffs lacked malicious intent, the court determined that the misconduct warranted rebuke and justified an uplift in costs to indemnify the defendants for the resources expended to address the fictitious citations and late-stage abandonment of claims.
- Why it matters now
- This case serves as a clear judicial rebuke of the failure to verify AI-generated legal research. It establishes that even in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead, the failure to verify AI-hallucinated authorities constitutes misconduct that can result in significant financial consequences through uplifted costs.
Why this matter is tracked
In this costs decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia addressed the conduct of pro se plaintiffs who cited non-existent, AI-hallucinated case law in their pleadings. The court found that while the plaintiffs lacked an intent to mislead, their failure to independently verify the authenticity of their legal authorities constituted misconduct worthy of rebuke. This conduct, combined with the late abandonment of claims that forced the defendants to expend significant resources, justified a departure from standard costs. The court denied the plaintiffs' request to bear their own costs and instead awarded the defendants uplift costs at 1.5 times the applicable tariff at Scale B, payable forthwith following assessment by the Registrar.
This case serves as a clear judicial rebuke of the failure to verify AI-generated legal research. It establishes that even in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead, the failure to verify AI-hallucinated authorities constitutes misconduct that can result in significant financial consequences through uplifted costs.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the plaintiffs' reliance on AI-hallucinated cases.
Reasons for Judgment on Costs following a hearing on strike applications.
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?
- The court found that the pro se plaintiffs' reliance on AI-hallucinated, fictitious authorities constituted misconduct worthy of rebuke. While the court accepted that the plaintiffs did not intend to mislead, their failure to verify the authenticity of their citations justified an award of uplift costs (1.5 times the tariff) to the defendants.
- Why does Krivaia v. Hungerford matter for legal AI risk?
- This case serves as a clear judicial rebuke of the failure to verify AI-generated legal research. It establishes that even in the absence of bad faith or intent to mislead, the failure to verify AI-hallucinated authorities constitutes misconduct that can result in significant financial consequences through uplifted costs.
- 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.