AQ v. BT
CRT 28 March 2025
- Party
- Pro Se Litigant
- AI Tool
- Implied / unconfirmed
Hallucinated Content
Fabricated
- Legal Norm
Party referred to CRTA section 50(2) as authority for awarding special costs. There is no section 50(2) in the CRTA.
- Case Law
Party cited cases which do not exist.
- Case Law
Party cited cases which do not exist.
Misrepresented
- Legal Norm
Party refered to CRT rule 7 authority for awarding special costs. CRT rule 7 has nothing to do with awarding costs.
- Case Law
Party relied on Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 to make a point about the harm of digitally manipulated content when the case is actually about language rights.
Outcome
Arguments ignored