T.B. v K.M.
King's Bench for Saskatchewan · Oct 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- King's Bench for Saskatchewan
- Record ID
- tb-v-km-2025-10-15
- Observed outcome
- Portions of the respondent's reply brief were struck, the court declined to award costs to the respondent, and the respondent was admonished for submitting unreliable legal materials.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Mismatched citations and case names trigger pleading strikes — verify every authority by name and neutral cite.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misattributed Case Citations
- Failure To Verify Legal Authorities
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Interim application for variation of parenting time in the King's Bench for Saskatchewan.
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
Respondent was questioned on AI use but only admitted to receiving assistance.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- 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.