RR v. Fraser Health Authority and others (No.3)
British Columbia HRT · Nov 20, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- British Columbia HRT
- Record ID
- rr-v-fraser-health-authority-and-others-no3-2025-11-20
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination complaint on the merits and declined the Respondents' application for costs regarding the fabricated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal concluded that the 13 case authorities cited by the complainant were likely AI-generated and non-existent after the Respondents successfully replicated the summaries using ChatGPT. The Tribunal declined to award costs, finding no evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead, but reaffirmed that litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of all materials submitted.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the use of AI tools is increasingly common, parties must exercise diligence to ensure AI output does not supersede their own judgment. Citing Duarte v. City of Richmond and Wu v. Murray, the Tribunal held that the human behind the tool remains responsible for all submissions. Because the Tribunal had not yet published a specific policy on AI use and found no evidence of intentional deception, it declined to award costs for the improper conduct.
Opposing counsel can now replicate AI hallucinations by re-prompting — build an audit trail proving your cites are human-verified.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Adjudicated decision on the merits of a human rights complaint, including a secondary application for costs related to the submission of fabricated case law.
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
Respondents used ChatGPT to replicate the complainant's fabricated case summaries.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.