Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Wu v. Murray
CA British Columbia · Oct 21, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontractappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant admitted an AI-generated written submission produced a fabricated case citation on a central point Outcome: Costs order took hallucinations into account.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Costs order took hallucinations into account; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Admitting AI fabrication does not mitigate costs — British Columbia factors it into the award.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant admitted an AI-generated written submission produced a fabricated case citation on a central point Outcome: Costs order took hallucinations into account.
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
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCosts order took hallucinations into account
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Costs order took hallucinations into account
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant admitted an AI-generated written submission produced a fabricated case citation on a central point
- 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?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant admitted an AI-generated written submission produced a fabricated case citation on a central point Outcome: Costs order took hallucinations into account.
- 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.