Musselman v. Vanderstelt
CA British Columbia · Aug 8, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CA British Columbia
- Record ID
- musselman-v-vanderstelt-2025-08-08
- Observed outcome
- Application for security for appeal costs granted in the amount of $3,500; application for security for trial costs dismissed.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$3,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
BC appellate courts now cite hallucinations as a factor granting security for costs — raise it early in your response materials.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$3,500
- Procedural posture
- Chambers application for security for appeal and trial costs in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
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
The judge referred to the citations as hallucinations produced by an AI program.
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 AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.