Whitaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS1144
CRT · May 22, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CRT
- Record ID
- whitaker-v-the-owners-strata-plan-vis1144-2026-05-22
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal partially allowed the applicant's claims, ordering the strata to pay $2,233.51 in reimbursed legal costs and interest, while dismissing the respondent's claim for legal fees related to the AI-generated submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$2,234
Why this matter warrants attention
The tribunal identified that the applicant submitted non-existent or misrepresented case law likely generated by AI. While the tribunal acknowledged that CRT rules permit considering such conduct when awarding legal expenses, it declined to award the respondent legal fees because the respondent's legal costs were incurred before the applicant's reply submissions were filed.
The tribunal reasoned that while CRT Rule 10.5(4)(d) permits awarding legal expenses for the submission of AI-generated false cases, no such award was warranted here because the respondent's legal work was completed before the applicant submitted the problematic reply.
This case illustrates a tribunal's application of specific procedural rules (CRT Rule 10.5(4)(d)) regarding AI-generated content. It highlights that while tribunals may penalize the use of AI-hallucinated authorities, such penalties are contingent upon a demonstrated nexus between the AI conduct and the opposing party's incurred costs.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$2,234
- Procedural posture
- Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) adjudication of a strata property dispute regarding special levy payments, lien validity, and legal cost reimbursement.
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 tribunal identified the submissions as likely created by an artificial intelligence tool.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.