HomeCasesMaxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.

Civil Resolution Tribunal · Aug 15, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight. Outcome: Argument given no weight.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Argument given no weight; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight. Outcome: Argument given no weight.

Operational lesson

ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.

Record details

CourtCivil Resolution Tribunal

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateAug 15, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeArgument given no weight

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Argument given no weight

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight.
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Applicant moved for reconsideration under CRTA s. 56, which had been repealed in 2015; tribunal noted it cannot be used.
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant claimed rebooking on WS 491 and denial of boarding; tribunal found WS 491 was not that route and he was instead booked on WS 3052, so no denial occurred.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight. Outcome: Argument given no weight.
Why does Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. matter for legal AI risk?: ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.
What does the public record establish about Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.?: 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 Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. 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.

Geismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970Civil Resolution Tribunal · Feb 14, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Folarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT LaPointe v. Chief Animal Welfare InspectorOntario's Animal Care Review Board · Jun 30, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger et alE.D. Virginia · Jun 2, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science AustraliaAdministrative Review Tribunal · Jan 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Chen v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3094Civil Resolution Tribunal · May 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight. Outcome: Argument given no weight.

Operational lesson

ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight.

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Applicant moved for reconsideration under CRTA s. 56, which had been repealed in 2015; tribunal noted it cannot be used.

Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant claimed rebooking on WS 491 and denial of boarding; tribunal found WS 491 was not that route and he was instead booked on WS 3052, so no denial occurred.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight. Outcome: Argument given no weight.

Why does Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. matter for legal AI risk?

ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.

What does the public record establish about Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.?

Which source supports this Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. 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.