Vicki Boomer v. Hospital Employees' Union and Interior Health Authority
British Columbia LRB · Dec 16, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed the applicant's claims after identifying that the application contained fabricated statutory provisions and non-existent case law citations. The Board explicitly noted these errors as characteristic of generative AI hallucinations and reminded future applicants of their duty to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of all filed legal materials.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited "Section 6(3)(h)" of the Labour Relations Code; the Board observed that no such provision exists and could not determine what was referenced. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a "Teamsters case (BCLRB No. B135/2022)"; the Board noted there is no case bearing that citation and that the citation appears fabricated. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant referred to "Section 13" as if it were a provision of the Labour Relations Code when it is a section of the Human Rights Code; the Board identified this misattribution.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in British Columbia LRB, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
In a decision by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, the Vice-Chair dismissed an application filed by a self-represented litigant alleging breaches of the Labour Relations Code. The Board identified multiple instances of fabricated legal authority, including a non-existent 'Section 6(3)(h)' of the Code and a non-existent case citation ('Teamsters case (BCLRB No. B135/2022)'). Additionally, the applicant misattributed a section of the Human Rights Code to the Labour Relations Code. The Board noted these errors as hallmarks of generative AI usage, emphasizing that while it did not confirm the use of such tools, the inaccuracies highlighted the risks of failing to verify the authenticity of filed materials, including statutory provisions and case law.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in British Columbia LRB, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Board noted the application bore hallmarks of generative AI.
The Board dismissed the application pursuant to Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie breach of the Code or disclose an apparent breach of the duty of fair representation.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited "Section 6(3)(h)" of the Labour Relations Code; the Board observed that no such provision exists and could not determine what was referenced.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited a "Teamsters case (BCLRB No. B135/2022)"; the Board noted there is no case bearing that citation and that the citation appears fabricated.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant referred to "Section 13" as if it were a provision of the Labour Relations Code when it is a section of the Human Rights Code; the Board identified this misattribution.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Vicki Boomer v. Hospital Employees' Union and Interior Health Authority?
- The British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed the applicant's claims after identifying that the application contained fabricated statutory provisions and non-existent case law citations. The Board explicitly noted these errors as characteristic of generative AI hallucinations and reminded future applicants of their duty to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of all filed legal materials.
- Why does Vicki Boomer v. Hospital Employees' Union and Interior Health Authority matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in British Columbia LRB, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Vicki Boomer v. Hospital Employees' Union and Interior Health Authority?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Vicki Boomer v. Hospital Employees' Union and Interior Health Authority 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.