Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)
Supreme Court of British Columbia · Jul 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Record ID
- moradi-v-british-columbia-human-rights-tribunal-2025-07-18
- Observed outcome
- Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
ChatGPT-generated case indexes are now a named cost-allocation factor; name the tool used when challenged.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to ChatGPT output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.