AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesObermann v. ICBC
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Obermann v. ICBC

BC CRT · Dec 19, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The tribunal member identified the applicant's citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address them, ruling that the tribunal is not obligated to consider arguments with no basis in law. The underlying claims were subsequently dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide evidence of fault or damages.

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 (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety, finding the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and failed to provide evidence of damages.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The tribunal identified the citations as hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Small claims adjudication before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal resulting in a final decision dismissing the applicant's claims.

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.

  1. 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?
The tribunal member identified the applicant's citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations and declined to address them, ruling that the tribunal is not obligated to consider arguments with no basis in law. The underlying claims were subsequently dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide evidence of fault or damages.
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.

Rasko v. ICBCBC CRT · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHowse v. CoultonBC CRT · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHakemi v. ICBCBC CRT · Jul 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsBlanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.BC CRT · May 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMargolles v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2477BC CRT · Apr 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLangen v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS5455BC CRT · Apr 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations