Lockwood v. ICBC
BC Civil Resolution Tribunal · Sep 3, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BC Civil Resolution Tribunal
- Record ID
- lockwood-v-icbc-2025-09-03
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal disregarded the applicant's AI-generated arguments and proceeded to adjudicate the substantive insurance claims on their merits.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal disregarded the applicant's reply submissions because they contained citations to non-existent regulations and rules, which the Tribunal attributed to the use of artificial intelligence. The Tribunal treated these references as erroneous and confusing, ultimately ignoring the arguments supported by the fabricated citations.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's citations were non-existent or inapplicable, noting that the applicant's reliance on AI resulted in confusing submissions that did not support her claims, leading the Tribunal to disregard those specific arguments.
This case illustrates how tribunals handle pro se litigants who rely on AI-generated hallucinations. It highlights the risk of procedural delay and the loss of credibility when parties submit fabricated legal authorities to a decision-maker.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Adjudication of insurance benefit claims before the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, including a review of reply submissions filed by the applicant.
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 Tribunal attributed the confusing citations to the applicant's reliance on artificial intelligence.
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.