Krivaia v. Hungerford
B.C. SC · May 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- B.C. SC
- Record ID
- krivaia-v-hungerford-2026-05-05
- Observed outcome
- The court awarded the defendants uplift costs at 1.5 times the applicable tariff at Scale B, payable forthwith following assessment by the Registrar.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Reasons for Judgment on Costs following a hearing on strike applications.
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 plaintiffs' reliance on AI-hallucinated cases.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal authorities, regardless of the research tool used.
- Establish a policy requiring human review of all AI-generated citations before inclusion in court filings.
- Document the research process for legal authorities to demonstrate due diligence in the event of a challenge.