Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Moradi 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 →

Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2025-07-18
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Index of authorities contained close to thirty new authorities, 22 of which the Court found were generated by ChatGPT and were not real cases; petitioner admitted they were produced by ChatGPT and 'turned out to be incorrect.' Court relied on this in assessing costs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Example fabricated authority listed in the index; did not correspond to a real reported case and was generated by ChatGPT. || Fabricated: Case Law | Second example of a fabricated authority generated by ChatGPT that the Court found did not exist.

Sanction teardown · Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada · 2025-07-18

Moradi v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

What happened

In Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Index of authorities contained close to thirty new authorities, 22 of which the Court found were generated by ChatGPT and were not real cases; petitioner admitted they were produced by ChatGPT and 'turned out to be incorrect.' Court relied on this in assessing costs.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Example fabricated authority listed in the index; did not correspond to a real reported case and was generated by ChatGPT.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Second example of a fabricated authority generated by ChatGPT that the Court found did not exist.

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. 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

Misconduct taken into account in allocating costs

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/740/Moradi_v._BC_Whole_Foods_Market_Canada_18_July_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/740/Moradi_v._BC_Whole_Foods_Market_Canada_18_July_2025.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