AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 11, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 9, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMaxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.

Civil Resolution Tribunal · Aug 15, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrativeNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's ChatGPT-generated evidence after determining the chatbot hallucinated a non-existent case citation. The tribunal further noted that the applicant's reliance on generative AI resulted in unreliable information, consistent with broader judicial concerns regarding the accuracy of such tools in legal proceedings.

Why the court cared
The tribunal member found the ChatGPT output unreliable because it cited a non-existent case, leading to the conclusion that the chatbot hallucinated the authority. Consequently, the tribunal gave the AI-generated evidence no weight.
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ChatGPT will cite repealed statutes as live law; verify every statutory citation against the current code, not AI output.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

In a small claims dispute before the Civil Resolution Tribunal, the applicant, Dean Maxwell, sought compensation for a cancelled flight and alleged denied boarding. The tribunal found that the airline, WestJet, properly cancelled the flight for safety reasons due to a malfunctioning flight management system. Regarding the applicant's submissions, the tribunal noted that the applicant relied on ChatGPT, which generated a non-existent case citation. The tribunal found the AI-generated information unreliable and gave it no weight. Additionally, the applicant attempted to use a repealed section of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act for reconsideration. The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the applicant failed to prove entitlement to compensation or damages, and denied reimbursement of tribunal fees.

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
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAll claims dismissed; AI-generated evidence given no weight.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

Applicant provided ChatGPT response as evidence and used it for reply submissions.

Procedural posture

Final decision on written submissions following a small claims dispute regarding flight cancellation and denied boarding compensation.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a non-existent case in his reply; tribunal inferred ChatGPT likely hallucinated it and gave it no weight.
  2. Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Applicant moved for reconsideration under CRTA s. 56, which had been repealed in 2015; tribunal noted it cannot be used.
  3. 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.?
The tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's ChatGPT-generated evidence after determining the chatbot hallucinated a non-existent case citation. The tribunal further noted that the applicant's reliance on generative AI resulted in unreliable information, consistent with broader judicial concerns regarding the accuracy of such tools in legal proceedings.
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 citationsFolarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTLaPointe v. Chief Animal Welfare InspectorOntario's Animal Care Review Board · Jun 30, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTPowhatan County School Board v. Skinger et alE.D. Virginia · Jun 2, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTBody by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science AustraliaAdministrative Review Tribunal · Jan 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTYoon v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW86Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations