WCAT Decision A2402099
BC WCAT · Jul 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BC WCAT
- Record ID
- wcat-decision-a2402099-2025-07-30
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over a federally regulated employer. Although the Tribunal did not formally issue a vexatious litigant order, it explicitly found that the worker's conduct—including the submission of AI-generated or fictitious case law—met the criteria for such a designation.
The Tribunal reasoned that the employer's federally regulated status precluded WCAT jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Regarding the vexatious conduct, the Tribunal applied the principles from Simon v. Canada (Attorney General) and Re Lang Michener, finding the worker's repeated filing of meritless claims, re-litigation of settled issues, and use of fictitious case law constituted an abuse of process.
Repeat AI-citation offenders are labeled vexatious; track prior incidents before filing in any tribunal.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal of a September 19, 2024, Board decision regarding a prohibited action complaint.
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
The worker relied on AI-generated case law in submissions.
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.
- 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.