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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Obermann v. ICBC
BC CRT · Dec 19, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions referred to cases that do not exist; tribunal concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address those citations. "Mr. Obermann’s submissions refer to cases that do not exist or do not apply. I find the most likely explanation is that they are “hallucinations” generated by artificial intelligence. In AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907 at paragraph 16, a CRT vice chair found that CRT’s obligation to provide sufficient reasons did not require it to address arguments with no basis in law. I agree with this reasoning and do not address those cases. "
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions referred to cases that do not exist; tribunal concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address those citations.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in BC CRT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions referred to cases that do not exist; tribunal concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address those citations. "Mr. Obermann’s submissions refer to cases that do not exist or do not apply. I find the most likely explanation is that they are “hallucinations” generated by artificial intelligence. In AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907 at paragraph 16, a CRT vice chair found that CRT’s obligation to provide sufficient reasons did not require it to address arguments with no basis in law. I agree with this reasoning and do not address those cases. "
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in BC CRT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
CourtBC CRT
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 19, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions referred to cases that do not exist; tribunal concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address those citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Obermann v. ICBC?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's submissions referred to cases that do not exist; tribunal concluded they were likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address those citations. "Mr. Obermann’s submissions refer to cases that do not exist or do not apply. I find the most likely explanation is that they are “hallucinations” generated by artificial intelligence. In AQ v. BW, 2025 BCCRT 907 at paragraph 16, a CRT vice chair found that CRT’s obligation to provide sufficient reasons did not require it to address arguments with no basis in law. I agree with this reasoning and do not address those cases. "
- Why does Obermann v. ICBC matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in BC CRT, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Obermann v. ICBC?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Obermann v. ICBC 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.