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.
Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc.
B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal · Apr 25, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a 2018 CRT case 'Smith v. Doe' that the tribunal states does not exist; used to argue CRT had fined participants under s.92. Outcome: Other side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD). "Ms. Simpson referred to a non-existent CRT case to support a patently incorrect legal position. She also referred to three Supreme Court of Canada cases that do not exist. Her submissions go on to explain in detail what legal principles those non-existent cases stand for. Despite these deficiencies, the submissions are written in a convincingly legal tone. Simply put, they read like a lawyer wrote them even though the underlying legal analysis is often wrong.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Other side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Pro-se AI submissions still trigger costs when opposing parties waste time chasing fake authorities.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a 2018 CRT case 'Smith v. Doe' that the tribunal states does not exist; used to argue CRT had fined participants under s.92. Outcome: Other side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD). "Ms. Simpson referred to a non-existent CRT case to support a patently incorrect legal position. She also referred to three Supreme Court of Canada cases that do not exist. Her submissions go on to explain in detail what legal principles those non-existent cases stand for. Despite these deficiencies, the submissions are written in a convincingly legal tone. Simply put, they read like a lawyer wrote them even though the underlying legal analysis is often wrong. These are all common features of submissions generated by artificial intelligence." [...]"25. I agree with Hung Long that there are two extraordinary circumstances here that justify compensation for its time. The first is Ms. Simpson’s use of artificial intelligence. It takes little time to have a large language model create lengthy submissions with many case citations. It takes considerably more effort for the other party to wade through those submissions to determine which cases are real, and for those that are, whether they actually say what Ms. Simpson purported they did. Hung Long’s owner clearly struggled to understand Ms. Simpson’s submissions, and his legal research to try to understand them was an utter waste of his time. I reiterate my point above that Ms. Simpson’s submissions cited a non-existent case in support of a legal position that is the precise opposite of the existing law. This underscores the impact on Hung Long. How can a self-represented party respond to a seemingly convincing legal argument that is based on a case it is impossible to find?26. I am mindful that Ms. Simpson is not a lawyer and that legal research is challenging. That said, she is responsible for the information she provides the CRT. I find it manifestly unfair that the burden of Ms. Simpson’s use of artificial intelligence should fall to Hung Long’s owner, who tried his best to understand submissions that were not capable of being understood. While I accept that Ms. Simpson did not knowingly provide fake cases or misleading submissions, she was reckless about their accuracy."
Operational lesson
Pro-se AI submissions still trigger costs when opposing parties waste time chasing fake authorities.
Record details
CourtB.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateApr 25, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOther side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Other side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD)
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a 2018 CRT case 'Smith v. Doe' that the tribunal states does not exist; used to argue CRT had fined participants under s.92.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued the CRT can impose fines under CRTA s.92; tribunal held the CRT has never, and cannot, impose such penalties.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Referred to a non-existent Supreme Court of Canada case (1 of 3); tribunal found three such SCC citations do not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Referred to a non-existent Supreme Court of Canada case (2 of 3); tribunal found three such SCC citations do not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Referred to a non-existent Supreme Court of Canada case (3 of 3); tribunal found three such SCC citations do not exist.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a 2018 CRT case 'Smith v. Doe' that the tribunal states does not exist; used to argue CRT had fined participants under s.92. Outcome: Other side compensated for time spent through costs order (500 CAD). "Ms. Simpson referred to a non-existent CRT case to support a patently incorrect legal position. She also referred to three Supreme Court of Canada cases that do not exist. Her submissions go on to explain in detail what legal principles those non-existent cases stand for. Despite these deficiencies, the submissions are written in a convincingly legal tone. Simply put, they read like a lawyer wrote them even though the underlying legal analysis is often wrong.…
- Why does Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Pro-se AI submissions still trigger costs when opposing parties waste time chasing fake authorities.
- What does the public record establish about Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc.?
- 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 Simpson v. Hung Long Enterprises Inc. 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.