Wu v. Murray
CA British Columbia · Oct 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CA British Columbia
- Record ID
- wu-v-murray-2025-10-21
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- CA$0
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Admitting AI fabrication does not mitigate costs — British Columbia factors it into the award.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- CA$0
- Procedural posture
- Application to the Registrar to settle an order and assess costs following the dismissal of an appeal as abandoned.
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 Registrar refers to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case citations and legal authorities generated or assisted by AI tools.
- Ensure all court filings are reviewed by a human to confirm the authenticity of cited precedents before submission.
- Monitor and adhere to local court directives regarding the use of litigation aids and artificial intelligence.