AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 31, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMiao v. Bouchard
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Miao v. Bouchard

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Courtready; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

Civil Resolution Tribunal · Mar 9, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a specific (but non-existent) rule number in the Real Estate Services Rules; Tribunal called it likely AI-generated and declined to address the regulatory breach.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Civil Resolution Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a specific (but non-existent) rule number in the Real Estate Services Rules; Tribunal called it likely AI-generated and declined to address the regulatory breach.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Civil Resolution Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtCivil Resolution Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 9, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a specific (but non-existent) rule number in the Real Estate Services Rules; Tribunal called it likely AI-generated and declined to address the regulatory breach.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Miao v. Bouchard?
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a specific (but non-existent) rule number in the Real Estate Services Rules; Tribunal called it likely AI-generated and declined to address the regulatory breach.
Why does Miao v. Bouchard matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Civil Resolution Tribunal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Miao v. Bouchard?
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 Miao v. Bouchard 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.

Chen v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3094Civil Resolution Tribunal · May 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBlaser v. CampbellCivil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsYoon v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW86Civil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMaxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.Civil Resolution Tribunal · Aug 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsGeismayr v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1970Civil Resolution Tribunal · Feb 14, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsAQ v. BWCivil Resolution Tribunal · Jul 4, 2025same court · pro se + trial

This record comes from Canada. See Fictitious citations in Canadian courts for counts across the corpus and the court guidance on AI.

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.