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.
T.B. v K.M.
King's Bench for Saskatchewan · Oct 15, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'A.M. v C.H., 2019 SKQB 162, 45 CPC (8th) 212' but the citation actually corresponded to Watch v Live Nation Entertainment Inc.; court found the citation incorrect and the brief unreliable. Outcome: Court declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Court declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Mismatched citations and case names trigger pleading strikes — verify every authority by name and neutral cite.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'A.M. v C.H., 2019 SKQB 162, 45 CPC (8th) 212' but the citation actually corresponded to Watch v Live Nation Entertainment Inc.; court found the citation incorrect and the brief unreliable. Outcome: Court declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment.
Operational lesson
Mismatched citations and case names trigger pleading strikes — verify every authority by name and neutral cite.
Record details
CourtKing's Bench for Saskatchewan
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCourt declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment
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
Court declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment
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 | Brief cited 'A.M. v C.H., 2019 SKQB 162, 45 CPC (8th) 212' but the citation actually corresponded to Watch v Live Nation Entertainment Inc.; court found the citation incorrect and the brief unreliable.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Baker v Baker, 2007 ONCA 329, 220 CCC (3d) 74' which the court identified as actually being R v Mariani; citation/name mismatch undermined the brief's trustworthiness.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'R.C. v R.C., 2013 NSCA 71, 331 NSR (2d) 151' but the authority was actually Antigonish/Guysborough Federation of Agriculture v Antigonish County (Municipality); court noted the misattribution.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'M.K. v S.K., 2010 ABQB 150, 99 CPC (6th) 367' which the court noted was actually Magnus v Condominium Plan No. 9511228; another instance of incorrect citation/name.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief referenced 'Gordon v Goertz, [1996] 2 SCR 27' but with an incomplete citation; court treated the brief as unreliable in part for this reason.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in T.B. v K.M.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'A.M. v C.H., 2019 SKQB 162, 45 CPC (8th) 212' but the citation actually corresponded to Watch v Live Nation Entertainment Inc.; court found the citation incorrect and the brief unreliable. Outcome: Court declined to award costs to applicant; portions of the reply brief were struck; admonishment.
- Why does T.B. v K.M. matter for legal AI risk?
- Mismatched citations and case names trigger pleading strikes — verify every authority by name and neutral cite.
- What does the public record establish about T.B. v K.M.?
- 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 T.B. v K.M. 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.