Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was 0997510 BC Ltd. on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

0997510 BC Ltd. v. Area 15, 2025 BCPAAB 20252585

Court
BCPAAB
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2025-11-19
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Appellant withdrew the unverifiable case references; the Board excluded all portions of the submission relying on the fabricated cases from the evidentiary record and issued a caution; no costs or professional sanctions were imposed.
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant submitted an unverifiable referenced case and summary produced with AI; Board could not locate the decision and the Appellant later withdrew it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant introduced a second unverifiable case reference and summary (also AI‑produced) after initial Board inquiry; it too was unverifiable and subsequently withdrawn.

Details

The Appellant submitted legal case references and summaries that the Board was unable to verify. After the Board requested copies, the Appellant admitted the materials were produced with AI and that the cited cases did not correspond to verifiable BC decisions, took responsibility, and withdrew the references. The Board found this conduct breached its Code (sections 2.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4) and Rules (Rule 21), excluded the affected evidence from the record, cautioned the Appellant, and declined to award costs or other sanctions in this matter.

Sanction teardown · BCPAAB, Canada · 2025-11-19

0997510 BC Ltd. v. Area 15, 2025 BCPAAB 20252585

What happened

In BCPAAB, Canada, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Appellant submitted an unverifiable referenced case and summary produced with AI; Board could not locate the decision and the Appellant later withdrew it.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Appellant introduced a second unverifiable case reference and summary (also AI‑produced) after initial Board inquiry; it too was unverifiable and subsequently withdrawn.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Appellant withdrew the unverifiable case references; the Board excluded all portions of the submission relying on the fabricated cases from the evidentiary record and issued a caution; no costs or professional sanctions were imposed.

Additional detail

The Appellant submitted legal case references and summaries that the Board was unable to verify. After the Board requested copies, the Appellant admitted the materials were produced with AI and that the cited cases did not correspond to verifiable BC decisions, took responsibility, and withdrew the references. The Board found this conduct breached its Code (sections 2.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4) and Rules (Rule 21), excluded the affected evidence from the record, cautioned the Appellant, and declined to award costs or other sanctions in this matter.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2909/0997510-BC-Ltd.-v.-Area-15-2025-BCPAAB-20252585.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2909/0997510-BC-Ltd.-v.-Area-15-2025-BCPAAB-20252585.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template