Morton v. Cherkaoui
B.C. CA · May 1, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court found that the pro se appellant used AI to generate fictitious case law in his factum. However, because the appellant corrected these errors immediately via a supplementary factum and the court found no intent to mislead, it declined to award special costs, ordering only ordinary costs against the appellant.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that while the use of AI-generated hallucinated authorities was a serious mistake, it did not warrant special costs because the appellant corrected the error immediately upon notification and the court found no evidence of an intent to mislead.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates that while courts view the submission of AI-hallucinated authorities as a serious error, immediate correction and a lack of demonstrated intent to mislead may mitigate the severity of judicial sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
In this appeal, the appellant, appearing pro se, utilized AI to generate written submissions that included fictitious, hallucinated case authorities. The respondent requested special costs, citing this AI usage alongside other alleged litigation misconduct. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia acknowledged the appellant's reliance on hallucinated authorities as a serious mistake but noted that the appellant corrected the error immediately upon being notified by filing a supplementary factum. The Court determined that the appellant's conduct did not meet the high threshold of 'reprehensible' behavior required for special costs. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and awarded ordinary costs to the respondent, declining to impose punitive special costs for the AI-related errors or other alleged misconduct.
This case illustrates that while courts view the submission of AI-hallucinated authorities as a serious error, immediate correction and a lack of demonstrated intent to mislead may mitigate the severity of judicial sanctions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the appellant used AI to produce submissions.
Supplementary reasons for judgment on costs following an appeal dismissal.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant placed AI-generated, fictitious case authorities in his factum; Court noted they were hallucinated and accepted the appellant's correction by supplementary factum.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Morton v. Cherkaoui?
- The court found that the pro se appellant used AI to generate fictitious case law in his factum. However, because the appellant corrected these errors immediately via a supplementary factum and the court found no intent to mislead, it declined to award special costs, ordering only ordinary costs against the appellant.
- Why does Morton v. Cherkaoui matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates that while courts view the submission of AI-hallucinated authorities as a serious error, immediate correction and a lack of demonstrated intent to mislead may mitigate the severity of judicial sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Morton v. Cherkaoui?
- 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 Morton v. Cherkaoui 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.