Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
NCR v KKB
Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · Jul 9, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In NCR v. KKB, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench partly allowed a family-arbitration appeal concerning support, costs, and set-off arrangements. Before deciding appellate costs, the court addressed seven authorities cited by the self-represented mother. The neutral citations led to reported cases, but the cited styles of cause and summarized propositions did not match; only one style of cause existed in legal databases, and it was an Ontario case. After the court asked for copies, the mother did not provide the authorities.…
- Why the court cared
- The court treated unverified authorities as unacceptable and a waste of court resources, but tempered its response because the litigant was self-represented and intent to mislead was not likely on the evidence.
- Why it matters now
- The decision shows a court can distinguish verification failure from deliberate deception while still denying a litigant the cost benefit that might otherwise follow partial success.
Why this matter is tracked
In NCR v. KKB, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench partly allowed a family-arbitration appeal concerning support, costs, and set-off arrangements. Before deciding appellate costs, the court addressed seven authorities cited by the self-represented mother. The neutral citations led to reported cases, but the cited styles of cause and summarized propositions did not match; only one style of cause existed in legal databases, and it was an Ontario case. After the court asked for copies, the mother did not provide the authorities. The judge said the material could reflect mistaken citation, internet searching, or AI-generated cases, but did not find an intention to mislead given her limited resources and legal expertise. The court disregarded the authorities and ordered each party to bear their own appeal costs, despite finding the mother largely successful on the merits.
Operational lesson
Alberta courts disregard fabricated citations without costs for pro-se parties; do not rely on that leniency if you are counsel.
Record details
CourtCourt of King’s Bench of Alberta
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 9, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court disregarded the fabricated citations and did not impose costs on the self-represented litigant.
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
The court disregarded the fabricated citations and did not impose costs on the self-represented litigant.
Correction behavior
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in NCR v KKB?
- In NCR v. KKB, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench partly allowed a family-arbitration appeal concerning support, costs, and set-off arrangements. Before deciding appellate costs, the court addressed seven authorities cited by the self-represented mother. The neutral citations led to reported cases, but the cited styles of cause and summarized propositions did not match; only one style of cause existed in legal databases, and it was an Ontario case. After the court asked for copies, the mother did not provide the authorities.…
- Why does NCR v KKB matter for legal AI risk?
- The decision shows a court can distinguish verification failure from deliberate deception while still denying a litigant the cost benefit that might otherwise follow partial success.
- What does the public record establish about NCR v KKB?
- English-language Alberta judgment. The court described AI as one possible explanation, not a proven tool use, and did not impose a separate sanction for the citations.
- Which source supports this NCR v KKB 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.