Musselman v. Vanderstelt
CA British Columbia · Aug 8, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court identified two fabricated case citations presented by a pro se appellant as AI-generated 'hallucinations.' The judge noted these non-existent authorities while evaluating the appellant's arguments against an order for security for appeal costs, ultimately granting the security order based on other established legal criteria.
- Why the court cared
- The judge reasoned that the appellant's reliance on non-existent cases, which she admitted she could not locate, indicated they were likely AI-generated hallucinations. This failure did not form the primary basis for the security order, which relied on the appellant's financial means, the doubtful merits of the appeal, and the interests of justice.
- Why it matters now
- BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.
Why this matter is tracked
In an application for security for costs, the appellant, appearing pro se, cited two purported CanLII cases to argue that security for costs is exceptional in family law. The registry could not locate these cases, and the appellant admitted she could not find them. The presiding judge, Gomery J.A., concluded the citations were likely AI-generated 'hallucinations' that did not exist. While the judge ultimately granted security for appeal costs based on the appellant's financial means, the merits of the appeal, and the interests of justice, the judge explicitly noted the appellant's reliance on non-existent authorities. The application for security for trial costs was dismissed due to lack of timeliness and insufficient evidence of prejudice.
BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The judge referred to the citations as hallucinations produced by an AI program.
Chambers application for security for appeal and trial costs in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | One of two purported CanLII cases cited by the appellant to support that security for costs is exceptional could not be located; registry queried the citation; judge concluded it likely does not exist and was an AI 'hallucination'.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Second purported CanLII case cited by the appellant likewise could not be located; appellant said she had erred copying the location; judge concluded it likely does not exist and was an AI 'hallucination'.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Musselman v. Vanderstelt?
- The court identified two fabricated case citations presented by a pro se appellant as AI-generated 'hallucinations.' The judge noted these non-existent authorities while evaluating the appellant's arguments against an order for security for appeal costs, ultimately granting the security order based on other established legal criteria.
- Why does Musselman v. Vanderstelt matter for legal AI risk?
- BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.
- What does the public record establish about Musselman v. Vanderstelt?
- 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 Musselman v. Vanderstelt 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.