Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver
OIPC BC · May 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The adjudicator identified that the pro se applicant misquoted a statutory provision (s. 22(4)(i) of FIPPA) and concluded, based on the submission's structure and content, that the applicant had extensively relied on AI software. The adjudicator explicitly noted that this did not lead to an adverse inference against the applicant's case.
- Why the court cared
- The adjudicator reasoned that the misquote of s. 22(4)(i), alongside the submission's excessive use of lists and confusing structure, indicated reliance on AI. The adjudicator explicitly stated that this did not affect the determination of the issues or warrant an adverse inference.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates how adjudicators are identifying and documenting the use of AI in pro se submissions. It provides a precedent for how courts may address AI-generated errors without necessarily penalizing the party, provided the error is not deemed intentional.
Why this matter is tracked
In a court-ordered reconsideration of a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) request, the OIPC BC adjudicator addressed a dispute regarding the disclosure of short-term rental (STR) addresses and business licence numbers. During the proceedings, the adjudicator identified that the applicant had misquoted s. 22(4)(i) of FIPPA in his written submission. The adjudicator observed that this misquote, combined with an excessive use of lists and a confusing structure, indicated that the applicant had extensively relied on artificial intelligence software to prepare his submission. The adjudicator clarified that this finding did not result in an adverse inference against the applicant's arguments or evidence, as there was no evidence of intentional inaccuracy.
This case illustrates how adjudicators are identifying and documenting the use of AI in pro se submissions. It provides a precedent for how courts may address AI-generated errors without necessarily penalizing the party, provided the error is not deemed intentional.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Adjudicator identified reliance on artificial intelligence software.
Court-ordered reconsideration of Order F21-65 following judicial review and appeal.
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: Legal Norm | Adjudicator identified a misquote of s. 22(4)(i) in the applicant's written submission and observed this indicated extensive reliance on AI-generated assistance.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver?
- The adjudicator identified that the pro se applicant misquoted a statutory provision (s. 22(4)(i) of FIPPA) and concluded, based on the submission's structure and content, that the applicant had extensively relied on AI software. The adjudicator explicitly noted that this did not lead to an adverse inference against the applicant's case.
- Why does Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates how adjudicators are identifying and documenting the use of AI in pro se submissions. It provides a precedent for how courts may address AI-generated errors without necessarily penalizing the party, provided the error is not deemed intentional.
- What does the public record establish about Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver?
- 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 Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver 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.