Wong v. Westendorf
BCCRT · Jun 8, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BCCRT
- Record ID
- wong-v-westendorf-2026-06-08
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety, finding she failed to prove the respondents breached the contract.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 generated using artificial intelligence.
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.