HomeCasesMusselman v. Vanderstelt

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Musselman v. Vanderstelt

CA British Columbia · Aug 8, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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'. Outcome: Weighed in deciding to grant security for trial costs.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Weighed in deciding to grant security for trial costs; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
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

Operational lesson

BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.

Record details

CourtCA British Columbia

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateAug 8, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWeighed in deciding to grant security for trial costs

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Weighed in deciding to grant security for trial costs

Correction behavior

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?: 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'. Outcome: Weighed in deciding to grant security for trial costs.
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.

Chan v. British ColumbiaCA British Columbia · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Wu v. MurrayCA British Columbia · Oct 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Arrieta v. CervantesCA Arizona · Jul 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian EverittCA Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re the Marriage of YoungCA Washington · Jul 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

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?

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?

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.