Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRasko 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 81/100. 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

Rasko v. ICBC

BC CRT · Jan 30, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Tribunal identified that the applicant cited a non-existent case, 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698,' during her argument regarding shared liability in a rear-end collision. The decision-maker explicitly noted the citation error and confirmed the case did not exist, though the applicant's claim was ultimately dismissed on the merits of the evidence.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698' for the proposition that a sudden unnecessary stop can share fault; Tribunal found the case does not exist and that ICBC had raised the issue.
Why it matters now
Opposing parties now routinely flag AI hallucinations; expect adversarial cite-checks on every submission.

Why this matter is tracked

In a small claims dispute before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, the applicant, Kristin Rasko, challenged an ICBC determination that she was 100% responsible for a rear-end collision. Rasko sought damages for a paid deductible and contested ICBC's coverage assessment. During proceedings, Rasko cited 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698' to argue that a lead driver's sudden, unnecessary stop can warrant shared fault. The Tribunal noted the cited case does not exist, as the neutral citation corresponds to a family law matter and the case name refers to an Ontario tenancy decision. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed Rasko's claims, finding she failed to rebut the presumption of responsibility for the rear-end collision and that the lead driver's stop was necessary.

Operational lesson

Opposing parties now routinely flag AI hallucinations; expect adversarial cite-checks on every submission.

Record details

CourtBC CRT
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for damages and refused to resolve the coverage dispute due to lack of jurisdiction.
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

Small claims adjudication before the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) 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 cited 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698' for the proposition that a sudden unnecessary stop can share fault; Tribunal found the case does not exist and that ICBC had raised the issue.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Rasko v. ICBC?
The Tribunal identified that the applicant cited a non-existent case, 'Brown v. Swanson, 2021 BCSC 698,' during her argument regarding shared liability in a rear-end collision. The decision-maker explicitly noted the citation error and confirmed the case did not exist, though the applicant's claim was ultimately dismissed on the merits of the evidence.
Why does Rasko v. ICBC matter for legal AI risk?
Opposing parties now routinely flag AI hallucinations; expect adversarial cite-checks on every submission.
What does the public record establish about Rasko 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 Rasko 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.