Order F26-38 – City of Vancouver
OIPC BC · May 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- OIPC BC
- Record ID
- order-f26-38-city-of-vancouver-2026-05-11
- Observed outcome
- The adjudicator found the applicant's argument regarding s. 22(4)(i) unpersuasive due to the misquote, but did not draw an adverse inference against the applicant's overall position.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- artificial intelligence software
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Court-ordered reconsideration of Order F21-65 following judicial review and 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
Adjudicator identified reliance on artificial intelligence software.
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 all statutory citations and quotations against official legislative sources regardless of the drafting tool used.
- Review AI-assisted submissions for structural anomalies or list-heavy formatting that may signal automated drafting.
- Maintain transparency with the tribunal regarding the use of AI tools in document preparation to avoid potential credibility issues.