AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMoradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)
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 95/100. 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

Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Supreme Court of British Columbia · Jul 18, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialMonetary
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

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.

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
CH
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.

  1. 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.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Example fabricated authority listed in the index; did not correspond to a real reported case and was generated by ChatGPT.
  3. 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 citationsBoonstra v Edmonton (City)Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · Apr 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTFolarin v. The Immigration Services CommissionnerFirst-tier Tribunal · Jan 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTDudak (Re)SafeRoads Alberta · Jan 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTRégie du bâtiment du Québec c. 9308-2469 Québec inc.Régie du bâtiment du Québec · Sep 11, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPTKaren Tyler v Attorney General of CanadaFederal Court · Sep 3, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT