HomeCasesMoradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Supreme Court of British Columbia · Jul 18, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Index of authorities contained close to thirty new authorities, 22 of which the Court found were generated by ChatGPT and were not real cases; petitioner admitted they were produced by ChatGPT and 'turned out to be incorrect.' Court relied on this in assessing costs. Outcome: Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.

Record details

CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 18, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMisconduct taken into account in allocating costs

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

Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs

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 | Index of authorities contained close to thirty new authorities, 22 of which the Court found were generated by ChatGPT and were not real cases; petitioner admitted they were produced by ChatGPT and 'turned out to be incorrect.' Court relied on this in assessing costs.
Fabricated: Case Law | Example fabricated authority listed in the index; did not correspond to a real reported case and was generated by ChatGPT.
Fabricated: Case Law | Second example of a fabricated authority generated by ChatGPT that the Court found did not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Index of authorities contained close to thirty new authorities, 22 of which the Court found were generated by ChatGPT and were not real cases; petitioner admitted they were produced by ChatGPT and 'turned out to be incorrect.' Court relied on this in assessing costs. Outcome: Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs.
Why does Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) matter for legal AI risk?: ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.
What does the public record establish about Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)?: 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 Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 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.

Zahariev v. ZaharievaSupreme Court of British Columbia · Jun 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Boonstra v Edmonton (City)Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · Apr 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Folarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Dudak (Re)SafeRoads Alberta · Jan 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Régie du bâtiment du Québec c. 9308-2469 Québec inc.Régie du bâtiment du Québec · Sep 11, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Maxwell v. WestJet Airlines Ltd.Civil Resolution Tribunal · Aug 15, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT

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

Operational lesson

ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Example fabricated authority listed in the index; did not correspond to a real reported case and was generated by ChatGPT.

Fabricated: Case Law | Second example of a fabricated authority generated by ChatGPT that the Court found did not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)?

Why does Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) matter for legal AI risk?

ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.

What does the public record establish about Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)?

Which source supports this Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 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.