AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWu v. Murray
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Wu v. Murray

CA British Columbia · Oct 21, 2025

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontractappellateMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Registrar awarded costs to the respondents, explicitly noting that the appellant's use of generative AI to produce fabricated case citations and her late filing of submissions justified the award. The Registrar held that self-represented litigants bear full responsibility for the accuracy of materials filed with the court, regardless of their use of AI tools.

Why the court cared
The Registrar reasoned that under the Court's Filing Directive, all litigants are responsible for the accuracy of filed materials. The Registrar determined that the appellant's admission of using AI to generate false case citations, combined with a late-filed response, warranted an award of costs to the respondents to address the applications.
Why it matters now
Admitting AI fabrication does not mitigate costs — British Columbia factors it into the award.

Why this matter is tracked

In Wu v. Murray, 2025 BCCA 365, the British Columbia Court of Appeal Registrar addressed an application for costs following an abandoned appeal. The self-represented appellant admitted to using generative artificial intelligence to prepare written submissions, which resulted in the inclusion of two fabricated case citations on a central legal point. Additionally, the appellant filed her response late. Registrar Outerbridge emphasized that all litigants, including self-represented parties, are responsible for the accuracy of filed materials under the Court's Filing Directive. While acknowledging the appellant's regret, the Registrar awarded ordinary costs of the applications to the respondents, citing the AI-generated hallucinations and the late filing as contributing factors to the award.

Operational lesson

Admitting AI fabrication does not mitigate costs — British Columbia factors it into the award.

Record details

CourtCA British Columbia
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 21, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Registrar awarded ordinary costs of the applications to the respondents, citing the appellant's use of AI to generate false case law and her late filing as the basis for the decision.
Known amountCA$0
Professional sanctionNone; the appellant was a self-represented litigant.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The Registrar refers to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

Procedural posture

Application to the Registrar to settle an order and assess costs following the dismissal of an appeal as abandoned.

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant admitted an AI-generated written submission produced a fabricated case citation on a central point
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | A second AI-generated fabricated case citation was admitted by the appellant; Registrar relied on this admission (and late filing) in awarding costs to respondents for the applications.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wu v. Murray?
The Registrar awarded costs to the respondents, explicitly noting that the appellant's use of generative AI to produce fabricated case citations and her late filing of submissions justified the award. The Registrar held that self-represented litigants bear full responsibility for the accuracy of materials filed with the court, regardless of their use of AI tools.
Why does Wu v. Murray matter for legal AI risk?
Admitting AI fabrication does not mitigate costs — British Columbia factors it into the award.
What does the public record establish about Wu v. Murray?
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 Wu v. Murray 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.

Chan v. British ColumbiaCA British Columbia · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMusselman v. VandersteltCA British Columbia · Aug 8, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsPatterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedChapter Kris Jackson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.10th Cir. CA · Jun 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedPamela Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.CA Kentucky · Mar 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedHowell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified