Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was SQBox Solutions 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 →

SQBox Solutions Ltd. v. Oak

Court
BC Civil Resolution Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Decided
2025-03-31
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Litigant lost on merits
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Another cited case in the submissions did not stand for the stated proposition. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Section 4 of the Employment Standards Act was incorrectly quoted to argue the Laptop Agreement was unenforceable; the tribunal rejected the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | One cited case did not exist; the tribunal found a fabricated authority among the five cases relied upon. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A case cited to argue the Laptop Agreement was unenforceable because it negated ESA rights did not stand for that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A second case cited for the same proposition (that the Laptop Agreement negated ESA rights) did not support that argument. || Misrepresented: Case Law | An additional cited case in Mr. Oak’s submissions was found not to support the proposition described. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | An unspecified section of the Employment Standards Act was incorrectly quoted in the submissions.

Details

"By relying on inaccurate and false AI submissions, Mr. Oak hurts his own case. I understand that Mr. Oak himself might not be aware that the submissions are misleading, but they are his submissions and he is responsible for them. "

Sanction teardown · BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Canada · 2025-03-31

SQBox Solutions Ltd. v. Oak

What happened

In BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Another cited case in the submissions did not stand for the stated proposition.
  • False Quotes (Legal Norm)
    Section 4 of the Employment Standards Act was incorrectly quoted to argue the Laptop Agreement was unenforceable; the tribunal rejected the argument.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    One cited case did not exist; the tribunal found a fabricated authority among the five cases relied upon.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    A case cited to argue the Laptop Agreement was unenforceable because it negated ESA rights did not stand for that proposition.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    A second case cited for the same proposition (that the Laptop Agreement negated ESA rights) did not support that argument.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    An additional cited case in Mr. Oak’s submissions was found not to support the proposition described.
  • False Quotes (Legal Norm)
    An unspecified section of the Employment Standards Act was incorrectly quoted in the submissions.

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

Litigant lost on merits

Additional detail

"By relying on inaccurate and false AI submissions, Mr. Oak hurts his own case. I understand that Mr. Oak himself might not be aware that the submissions are misleading, but they are his submissions and he is responsible for them. "

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/534/SQBox_Solutions_Ltd._v._Oak_31_March_2025_Canada.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/534/SQBox_Solutions_Ltd._v._Oak_31_March_2025_Canada.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