Court rulings referenced in B.C. condo dispute were AI generated, ‘do not exist,’ tribunal finds

(Bloomberg Creative Photos) (Bloomberg Creative Photos/Bloomberg Creative)

You can’t necessarily trust an AI chatbot with legal matters, as one B.C. couple learned during a dispute with their condo’s strata corporation.

Robert and Michelle Geismayr have faced headaches over unauthorized alterations that were made to their condo by the previous owner, and took the strata to B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking an order to retroactively approve the changes.

To support their claim, the couple submitted references to 10 court decisions they had identified with the help of AI – but tribunal member Peter Mennie determined nine of the cases simply “do not exist.”

“The Geismayrs listed the source of these cases as a ‘Conversation with Copilot,’ which is an artificial intelligence chatbot,” Mennie wrote, in his Feb. 14 decision. “I find it likely that these cases are ‘hallucinations’ where artificial intelligence generates false or misleading results.”

Dispute over loft

The Geismayrs purchased their condo unit in October 2020, and were already aware of the unapproved alterations at that time, according to the CRT decision.

The strata corporation’s concerns centred around a loft – described as a wooden platform near the condo’s ceiling, accessible by ladder – that was installed without a permit, prompting a stop-work order from the local municipality.

Mennie’s decision does not specify where the condo complex is located, except that it is near a B.C. ski resort.

The property operates as a hotel condominium, with the owners subject to a rental covenant and rental pool management agreement – and the strata said the loft initially made the Geismayrs’ unit unrentable under those terms.

Fixes not good enough

After purchasing the condo, the Geismayrs contacted the property’s rental management organization and were given a list of recommendations to make their unit rentable again.

“This included sealing off the loft so that guests could not access it,” Mennie wrote. “The Geismayrs followed these recommendations and were added to the rental pool for the next three ski seasons.”

The strata continued to refuse to approve the alterations, however, and in February 2023 demanded that the couple remove the loft entirely.

The corporation told the tribunal it was reluctant to rubber-stamp the loft “because it did not want to set a precedent where other owners could alter their strata lots and later seek retroactive approval,” Mennie wrote.

Law ‘very different’ from AI generations

The AI-identified court decisions the Geismayrs submitted to the tribunal all indicated a condo corporation cannot “force the removal of strata lot altercations,” according to Mennie’s decision, which pointed out that the cases included names and dates, but no legal citations.

“The state of the law is very different than what Copilot reported,” the tribunal member added. “Multiple CRT decisions say that owners cannot reasonably expect retroactive approval for alterations done without the strata’s prior authorization.”

Mennie cited several such examples, and said he agreed with his colleagues’ reasoning in those previous cases.

“The Geismayrs purchased the strata lot knowing that the local district had issued a stop work order and the strata had refused to approve the alterations,” he wrote.

“In these circumstances, I find that the strata’s refusal to retroactively approve the strata lot’s alterations does not rise to the level of significant unfairness. So, I dismiss the Geismayrs’ claims.”