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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Reddy v Saroya
CA Alberta · Sep 26, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontractappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's initial factum contained seven cited cases that could not be found (six purportedly ABCA decisions); court found they were likely fabricated and traced to use of a large language model; amended factum was permitted and costs referred. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The appellant's original factum contained references to seven cases that could not be located (six allegedly decisions of this Court). Respondent flagged the issue; appellant's counsel ultimately acknowledged a contractor-drafted factum and that a large language model may have been used.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Outsourced drafting is your liability; verify every citation before filing or pay the costs.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's initial factum contained seven cited cases that could not be found (six purportedly ABCA decisions); court found they were likely fabricated and traced to use of a large language model; amended factum was permitted and costs referred. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The appellant's original factum contained references to seven cases that could not be located (six allegedly decisions of this Court). Respondent flagged the issue; appellant's counsel ultimately acknowledged a contractor-drafted factum and that a large language model may have been used. The Court allowed an amended factum and reserved costs, warning that use of LLM without verification may attract costs, contempt proceedings, or Law Society referral.Monetary sanction was determined in a subsequent decision (available here).
Operational lesson
Outsourced drafting is your liability; verify every citation before filing or pay the costs.
Record details
CourtCA Alberta
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 26, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAdverse Costs Order
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
Adverse Costs Order
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 | Appellant's initial factum contained seven cited cases that could not be found (six purportedly ABCA decisions); court found they were likely fabricated and traced to use of a large language model; amended factum was permitted and costs referred.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Reddy v Saroya?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's initial factum contained seven cited cases that could not be found (six purportedly ABCA decisions); court found they were likely fabricated and traced to use of a large language model; amended factum was permitted and costs referred. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The appellant's original factum contained references to seven cases that could not be located (six allegedly decisions of this Court). Respondent flagged the issue; appellant's counsel ultimately acknowledged a contractor-drafted factum and that a large language model may have been used.…
- Why does Reddy v Saroya matter for legal AI risk?
- Outsourced drafting is your liability; verify every citation before filing or pay the costs.
- What does the public record establish about Reddy v Saroya?
- 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 Reddy v Saroya 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.