Wong v. Westendorf
BCCRT · Jun 8, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims after identifying that her submissions contained AI-generated hallucinations, including a non-existent statute and a misapplied Sale of Goods Act provision. The Tribunal explicitly refused to address these fabricated arguments, citing CRT Rule 8.3(8), and ultimately ruled that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the alleged breach of contract.
- Why the court cared
- The Tribunal Member found the applicant's reliance on non-existent legislation and misapplied statutes likely resulted from AI-generated hallucinations. Pursuant to CRT Rule 8.3(8), which prohibits submitting non-existent legislation created by AI, the Tribunal excluded these arguments from its decision-making process.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates a tribunal's formal application of procedural rules to address AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the risk of relying on AI for legal research and the judicial response of excluding fabricated authorities while deciding the underlying merits based on admissible evidence.
Why this matter is tracked
In a small claims dispute regarding a property sale, the applicant, Yee Lam Wong, alleged the respondents breached the contract of purchase and sale by failing to provide a functional heating system. The applicant submitted arguments relying on non-existent legislation, specifically the 'British Columbia Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement Act,' and mischaracterized the Sale of Goods Act. The Tribunal Member, Jeffrey Drozdiak, identified these citations as AI-generated hallucinations and invoked CRT Rule 8.3(8) to exclude them from consideration. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims, finding she failed to prove the respondents breached the contract on a balance of probabilities, as the respondents provided evidence that the system was functional at the time of possession.
This case illustrates a tribunal's formal application of procedural rules to address AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the risk of relying on AI for legal research and the judicial response of excluding fabricated authorities while deciding the underlying merits based on admissible evidence.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Tribunal identified the submissions as generated using artificial intelligence.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) issued a final decision on the merits following a review of written submissions, as the Tribunal determined an oral hearing was unnecessary.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited a non-existent statute called the "British Columbia Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement Act"; Tribunal found this legislation does not exist and treated it as an AI-generated fabrication, refusing to address the argument.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant relied on the Sale of Goods Act s.19 as if it required the property to be fit for habitation; Tribunal held the SGA contains no such requirement and treated the citation as an AI-generated misstatement.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Wong v. Westendorf?
- The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims after identifying that her submissions contained AI-generated hallucinations, including a non-existent statute and a misapplied Sale of Goods Act provision. The Tribunal explicitly refused to address these fabricated arguments, citing CRT Rule 8.3(8), and ultimately ruled that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the alleged breach of contract.
- Why does Wong v. Westendorf matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates a tribunal's formal application of procedural rules to address AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the risk of relying on AI for legal research and the judicial response of excluding fabricated authorities while deciding the underlying merits based on admissible evidence.
- What does the public record establish about Wong v. Westendorf?
- 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 Wong v. Westendorf 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.