Siemens v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3699
CRT · Mar 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CRT
- Record ID
- siemens-v-the-owners-strata-plan-eps3699-2026-03-10
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal found the strata's actions significantly unfair but denied the applicant's claim for $58,000 in monetary damages, finding the evidence provided in support of the claim to be vague, unsupported, and lacking in objective proof.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal rejected the applicant's reliance on two cited cases, finding they were likely AI-generated 'hallucinations' that did not exist or were inapplicable. The tribunal explicitly stated these citations did not accurately represent the law and declined to rely on them in its decision-making process.
The tribunal member found that the applicant's cited cases were likely AI-generated hallucinations because they did not exist or were inapplicable, and therefore did not accurately state the law.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research without verification. It provides a clear example of a tribunal identifying and explicitly rejecting AI-hallucinated case law, reinforcing the necessity for courts to scrutinize AI-generated submissions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Final decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) following a judicial review by the BC Supreme Court, which remitted the dispute for reconsideration.
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
Tribunal identified citations as likely AI-generated hallucinations.
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 the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.