T.B. v K.M.
King's Bench for Saskatchewan · Oct 15, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court struck portions of the respondent's reply brief and declined to award him costs due to the submission of fabricated and misattributed case law. The judge admonished the self-represented respondent, emphasizing that he bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of all materials submitted to the court, regardless of whether he received outside assistance in their preparation.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that citing fake cases is an abuse of process that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. While the court accepted the respondent's statement that he did not intend to mislead the court, it held that a self-represented litigant has an absolute obligation to ensure the accuracy of their filings. The court determined that the brief was of no use and unreliable, justifying the striking of the reply brief and the denial of costs.
- 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
In a family law matter, the self-represented respondent (K.M.) submitted a brief of law containing multiple fabricated case citations. The court identified that the cited cases either did not exist or were misattributed to unrelated legal authorities (e.g., citing 'A.M. v C.H.' which was actually 'Watch v Live Nation Entertainment Inc.'). When questioned, the respondent claimed he received assistance in preparing the materials but did not explicitly confirm the use of AI. The court struck portions of the respondent's reply brief, admonished the respondent regarding his obligation to ensure the accuracy of court filings, and declined to award him costs despite his partial success on the underlying parenting application.
Mismatched citations and case names trigger pleading strikes — verify every authority by name and neutral cite.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Respondent was questioned on AI use but only admitted to receiving assistance.
Interim application for variation of parenting time in the King's Bench for Saskatchewan.
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.?
- The court struck portions of the respondent's reply brief and declined to award him costs due to the submission of fabricated and misattributed case law. The judge admonished the self-represented respondent, emphasizing that he bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of all materials submitted to the court, regardless of whether he received outside assistance in their preparation.
- 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.