We polled Canada’s courts to better understand how they’re engaging with genAI
In mid-April, Canadian Lawyer sent a survey to Canada's courts to better understand how the justice system is engaging with generative AI.
The survey posed more than a dozen questions on how each venue – from the Supreme Court of Canada to Yukon’s Small Claims court – was regulating genAI use by litigants, law clerks, and judges, training court staff on genAI tools, and incorporating them into court functions. The survey also probed into the specific tools courts are using, their selection criteria, and how courts are benefiting from or being challenged by issues arising from the broader use of genAI.
In the end, 21 of 51 courts responded, varying in detail. Some courts answered all, or nearly all, the survey questions in extensive detail. Some pointed to previously published practice directions on their websites. Others indicated that they did not yet have any AI-specific policies, but were considering the issue.
Below, we break down how each court in Canada is engaging with genAI. Much of the information is based on what survey participants generously shared with Canadian Lawyer. For the courts that did not participate, we filled in the gaps using publicly available practice directions and notices related to AI. We did not include rules or precedents established by court decisions, which are already being tracked through various initiatives, such as those by Paris-based researcher Damien Charlotin and Courtready.
Here are some of the biggest takeaways:
- Eleven courts said their judges’ approach to genAI use is shaped by the principles outlined by the Canadian Judicial Council’s Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts. The CJC guidelines were published in September 2024.
- Only three courts said they had rules for how law clerks can use genAI tools in their work. One other court, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, said it does not sanction the use of genAI by judges or law clerks, but does not have specific guidelines or rules. A fifth court, the Federal Court, indicated it would not use AI or automated decision-making tools to make rulings without first engaging in public consultations.
- By our count, 21 courts have guidelines on genAI use for lawyers and litigants in the form of practice directions, notices, or rules listed on a webpage.
- The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Quebec Court of Appeal, Superior Court of Quebec, and the Yukon Court of Appeal currently have the most developed AI policies among Canadian courts.
Federal courts
Supreme Court of Canada
A court spokesperson declined to answer the specific questions in the survey. However, the spokesperson said the high court follows the principles outlined by the CJC guidelines.
Federal Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey.
Federal Court
The court did not participate in the survey. However, the court published AI guidelines in September 2025, stating that it would not use AI or automated decision-making tools to make rulings without first engaging in public consultations.
The guidelines follow other notices on AI use that the court issued in 2023 and 2024 for lawyers and litigants.
AI tools being used by the court: In its 2025 guidelines, the court indicated AI tools are now being used to assist language specialists who translate court decisions. The court noted that the tools do not replace the humans doing the work, and that the department responsible for translations uses a quality control system to ensure they accurately reflect the original reasons and outcomes of rulings.
British Columbia
British Columbia Court of Appeal
A court spokesperson participated in the survey on the court’s behalf. The responses detailed policies and guidelines on AI use for judges, law clerks, and litigants. They also shed light on how the court uses AI tools, what training it provides justices, law clerks, and other court staff, and ongoing policy development.
Here are the key takeaways.
Rules for judges: Justices of the court follow the CJC guidelines, including the tenet that judicial decision-making power cannot be delegated.
The court noted that the CJC’s framework for judges’ ethical obligations requires judges to develop and maintain proficiency with technology relevant to their judicial duties.
Rules for law clerks: Law clerks are not permitted to use genAI tools to support judicial work, except under limited circumstances. For example, they can refer to the AI-generated case summaries that CanLII provides for cases and legislation.
Law clerks cannot directly cite AI-generated summaries of cases, but can use them to navigate a case or get a quick snapshot of its relevance.
When conducting legal research, they can use CanLII Search+, which allows users to pose research questions using plain language. The tool converts these questions into structured search terms, which are then used to retrieve relevant case law. Search results yield a list of linked cases rather than an AI-generated memo with analysis or comment.
Rules for lawyers/litigants: The registrar’s filing directive applies to all individuals filing materials with the court, including lawyers and self-represented litigants. Under s. 7.3, titled “Use of Litigation Aids & Artificial Intelligence,” the guidelines remind all litigants “that they are responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of all materials filed with the court.”
The court noted that the Law Society of BC has provided additional guidelines to lawyers on their professional responsibility and genAI.
Training for judges and court staff: Justices and court staff recently completed a survey to help identify education and training needs.
The court noted that members of the BCCA participate in committees and forums related to learning about genAI, including the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada’s action committee on modernizing court operations, the CJC technology committee, and the National Center for State Courts’ AI policy consortium.
Penalties for non-compliance: Individuals who file inaccurate materials to the court due to their use of AI tools will be penalized with remedies typically available to the court in cases of misconduct, including orders for costs.
This applies to both lawyers and litigants. The BCCA cited its 2025 decision in Wu v. Murray, in which a self-represented litigant filed materials that included AI-hallucinated case law. The decision reminded the parties that the Registrar’s Filing Directive applies “whether the inaccurate representations are made by a lawyer or a self-represented party.”
AI tools used by the court: All members of the BC Public Service, including court staff, have access to Microsoft Copilot with enterprise encryption. This use is subject to the BC Public Service Agency’s brief policy on the use of genAI and to guidelines specifically applicable to courts and judges.
Future plans related to genAI: The BCCA’s technology committee, which supervises projects to enhance the use of technology in the court, is currently evaluating the possibility of using genAI tools for auto-transcription and summarization tasks.
According to the BCCA’s 2025 annual report, the BC court system launched a pilot project at the BC Supreme Court that uses an auto-transcription tool to generate a rough, uncertified transcript of trial proceedings for lawyers to use instead of daily transcripts. Even after being vetted for accuracy by a human, these transcripts could be less expensive than a manually generated transcript and help the BCCA cut costs.
The Technology Committee is continuing to monitor the development of genAI tools and the professional and ethical issues that arise.
Challenges related to genAI: The court flagged multiple concerns due to the growing use of genAI tools to prepare court submissions. Submissions prepared with genAI tend to be longer and harder to authenticate. The court said the tools could also make it easier for litigants to abuse court processes via prolific filings.
The court noted that AI legal software is often very expensive and therefore inaccessible, even at an institutional level. The rapid development of AI further makes it hard to properly evaluate different tools and “craft policy at the institutional level that is relevant to current or future realities.”
Supreme Court of British Columbia
The court did not participate in the survey.
Provincial Court of British Columbia
The court did not participate in the survey. However, a webpage outlining legal research rules on the court’s website includes a section on artificial intelligence, which urges lawyers to comply with their professional responsibilities, including those outlined in the Law Society of BC’s AI guidelines.
The website states that lawyers and litigants should include hyperlinks to cited cases, as well as relevant paragraph and page numbers containing a cited legal principle. Lawyers and litigants must also disclose the extent of their AI use when asked by a judge and may be subject to cost orders, adjournments, dismissal of proceedings, or contempt proceedings if they fail to do so.
Alberta
Alberta Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey. In October 2023, the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Justice jointly released a notice urging lawyers and litigants to exercise caution, rely on credible sources, and have a “human in the loop” when using AI tools.
Court of King’s Bench of Alberta
The court did not participate in the survey. In October 2023, the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Justice jointly released a notice urging lawyers and litigants to exercise caution, rely on credible sources, and have a “human in the loop” when using AI tools.
Alberta Court of Justice
The court did not participate in the survey. In October 2023, the Alberta Court of Appeal, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Justice jointly released a notice urging lawyers and litigants to exercise caution, rely on credible sources, and have a “human in the loop” when using AI tools.
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey.
Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench
The court did not participate in the survey. In January 2026, the court issued a practice direction on artificial intelligence. The practice direction notes that it does not ban the appropriate use of AI, but “places the onus on the individual filing or presenting materials to ensure their accuracy, authenticity, and reliability.”
Saskatchewan Provincial Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
Manitoba
Manitoba Court of Appeal
A court spokesperson said the court has not yet finalized a policy on AI use. The court is continuing to consider the issue.
Manitoba Court of King’s Bench
Lawyers and litigants must comply with a June 2023 practice direction, which indicates that “when artificial intelligence has been used in the preparation of materials filed with the court, the materials must indicate how artificial intelligence was used.”
A court spokesperson said the court has no additional finalized policies or procedures on AI use.
Manitoba Provincial Court
A court spokesperson said the court has not yet finalized a policy on AI use. The court is continuing to consider the issue.
Ontario
Ontario Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey.
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
A court spokesperson pointed to the court’s new practice directions for lawyers and litigants on AI use, which were last updated in February 2026. The court provides separate sets of directions for civil, criminal, and family law matters.
Ontario Court of Justice
The court did not participate in the survey.
Quebec
Quebec Court of Appeal
A court spokesperson participated in the survey on the court’s behalf. The responses detailed the court’s rules for AI use for justices, law clerks, and litigants. They also explain the court's efforts to evaluate genAI tools and the challenges it faces in effectively integrating them.
Here are the key takeaways.
Rules for judges: Justices of the court follow the CJC guidelines.
The spokesperson noted that over several weeks, several justices tested different AI legal software as part of an experiment run by the court’s technology committee. The experiment raised numerous concerns, leading the court to bar justices, law clerks, and other court staff from using these tools for the time being.
The committee is continuing to test genAI tools, which the spokesperson notes are evolving rapidly.
Rules for law clerks: Law clerks are not currently permitted to use AI legal software following the technology committee’s experiment.
Rules for lawyers/litigants: Lawyers and litigants are encouraged to use genAI tools with caution, as outlined in an August 2024 notice that emphasizes caution, a reliance on credible sources, and human involvement.
The court’s chief justice also issued a directive encouraging lawyers and litigants to include hyperlinks to credible sources when referencing legislation, cases, or doctrines (ss. 2.2.5 and 2.3.2). The spokesperson said this reduces the risk of individuals citing hallucinated sources. The directive was last updated in March 2026.
Initiatives related to genAI: In addition to the technology committee’s ongoing evaluation of AI legal software, the court has been involved in Quebec’s judicial committee on information security, launched in 2023, and is coordinating initiatives and observations on technology issues across the courts in Quebec. A subcommittee devoted to genAI was created in 2025.
Challenges related to genAI: The spokesperson said that while the court is enthusiastic about genAI’s potential to improve the justice system’s efficacy, the lack of human and material resources has made it challenging to integrate new tools into the court.
“The evaluation, procurement, and secure deployment of these technologies within our processes require considerable resources – resources that are more than limited,” the spokesperson said.
Superior Court of Quebec
A court spokesperson participated in the survey on the court’s behalf. The responses provided an overview of the court’s AI pilot project for judges, the criteria it used to select genAI tools for the project, and why it does not plan to develop guidelines for law clerks.
Here are the key takeaways.
Rules for judges: In September 2025, the court adopted an AI governance framework for judges as part of a pilot project. The framework provides judges with guidelines on how to use AI to support their work.
Twenty-two judges, representing 11.17 percent of the court’s bench, volunteered to participate in the broader pilot project, the goal of which was to evaluate how often judges were using AI as part of their daily work routines, how satisfied they were with the AI tools they were using, and the benefits and limitations of the tools. From December 2025 to March 2026, the volunteer judges used various Microsoft AI applications to assist with writing, translation (French to English and English to French), legislative research, legal citation, and technical support.
The volunteer judges were not permitted to use the tools to draft rulings or perform any element of judicial decision-making.
In an April 2026 report on its findings, the court said its project might be one of the first documented and controlled experiments in AI integration within a Canadian superior court.
The spokesperson said the court strongly discourages the use of AI outside the pilot project’s controlled environment, due to the lack of confidentiality and security guarantees in many commercial genAI products.
Rules for law clerks: The court has not developed policies for its support staff because they are employees of the Government of Québec. The court itself does not govern court staff, but by the Ministère de la Justice and the Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor.
Rules for lawyers/litigants: The court has not yet issued any specific practice directions on AI use for lawyers. Lawyers are expected to follow existing rules of civil procedure and ethics and monitor genAI developments closely, particularly because genAI “is expected to significantly affect the presentation of evidence before the courts,” the spokesperson said.
Training for judges: Judges who volunteered to participate in the pilot project were required to undergo training on the Microsoft tools, effective prompting, the limits of the tools, and the inherent risks of genAI.
Throughout the pilot, judges had access to technical and functional support at weekly meetings.
At the court’s annual assembly in October 2024, all the court’s judges were offered training on the risks and benefits of AI.
Penalties for non-compliance: The AI governance framework for judges does not include a formal disciplinary mechanism.
AI tools used by the court: During the pilot project, the volunteer judges had access to nine specialized AI agents deployed through Microsoft Copilot Studio. The agents drew on data from the Civil Code of Québec, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and the court’s internal Livre bleu (family law). Web browsing was disabled for each agent, and access to each agent’s default knowledge base – the general knowledge embedded in the underlying model – was blocked.
The volunteer judges reported using the applications most frequently for text revision and reformulation (89 percent of respondents), translation and linguistic support (63 percent), drafting assistance (63 percent), and legal research (53 percent).
Selection criteria for AI tools: For the pilot project, tools were selected based on a range of criteria. These included:
- Data confidentiality and security
- Data residency on Canadian territory
- Absence of training on user inputs
- Deployment within a sandboxed environment with no automatic access to users’ files
- Integration with the court's existing technological environment (Microsoft 365 and Teams)
- Ability to disable web access and to restrict the agent to validated knowledge bases
- Reliability and verifiability of outputs, including verbatim citation of legal sources where applicable
- Prior validation by cybersecurity experts advising Quebec courts.
- Alignment with the principles outlined in the AI governance framework, including judicial independence and proportionality of uses
Benefits and challenges related to genAI: The April 2026 report on the pilot project indicated that the participating judges found numerous benefits in using genAI tools, particularly valuing their ability to help with text revision and reformulation, translation, and drafting. Eighty-four percent of respondents said the AI tools were useful without compromising their professional autonomy or judgment.
However, the experiment also found several downsides. These included the risk of hallucinations, though there were fewer than 10 documented cases of hallucinations across 893 sessions; the tools’ spotty reliability for specialized legal research; the risk of over-relying on the tools; and the possibility of genAI impacting the presentation of evidence before the courts.
The pilot project also highlighted the court’s lack of a dedicated AI expert, due to its reliance on the Ministère de la Justice for staffing decisions. The court also flagged the ongoing maintenance of AI tools “whose behaviour can change following platform updates by the underlying provider,” the spokesperson said.
Court of Quebec
The court declined to participate in the survey.
Quebec Municipal Courts
The courts did not participate in the survey.
New Brunswick
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey.
New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench
The court did not participate in the survey.
New Brunswick Provincial Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
New Brunswick Probate Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
New Brunswick Small Claims Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Rules for judges: A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee.
The committee educates Nova Scotia judges and court staff on the use of technology in the courts, evaluates emerging technologies such as genAI, and provides advice on related issues. The committee also provides advice to the courts’ chief justices and chief judge.
Rules for lawyers/litigants: Lawyers and litigants must comply with a March 2025 practice direction that the court will update as required. The practice direction emphasizes caution when relying on case law or analysis generated by AI tools and states that court participants are “ultimately responsible for the content, completeness, and accuracy of all material submitted to the court.”
The appellate court said it expects “all written and oral submissions referencing case law, statutes or commentary will be based on accredited and established legal databases.”
AI tools used by the court: From November 2024 through March 2025, the court ran a pilot project with the Canadian legal tech firm Lexum to test a new AI summary tool that uses a closed AI system. The spokesperson said the pilot relied heavily on human oversight. AI-generated case summaries were published only after the chair of the panel for each appeal approved them.
The court has since permanently adopted AI case summaries.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
Rules for judges: A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee (see more details on the committee above).
Rules for lawyers/litigants: Lawyers and litigants must comply with the practice direction, last updated in February 2025. The practice direction urges caution, relying exclusively on “authoritative sources” like official court websites to construct references to case law, statutes, or commentary, and having a human in the loop.
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Rules for judges: A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee (see more details on the committee above).
Rules for lawyers/litigants: Lawyers and litigants must comply with an October 2023 practice direction that requires references to case law, statutes, or commentary in written or oral submissions to be sourced from established legal databases.
The practice direction also states that parties who rely on AI-generated materials must articulate how AI was used. The court references Mata v. Avianca Inc., a case in which a US federal court dismissed a personal injury complaint and fined the plaintiffs’ lawyers for submitting fake case law hallucinated by ChatGPT.
Nova Scotia Bankruptcy Court
Rules for judges: A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee (see more details on the committee above).
Rules for lawyers/litigants: The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has a separate set of practice directions for lawyers and litigants participating in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings before Nova Scotia’s registrar in bankruptcy. The registrar hears most matters that go to the bankruptcy court, though some matters are referred to the Supreme Court.
Nova Scotia Probate Court
A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee (see more details on the committee above).
The court does not have its own rules governing AI use.
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
A court spokesperson said Nova Scotia’s courts have endorsed the CJC guidelines for judges, on the recommendation of the courts’ technology committee (see more details on the committee above).
The court does not have its own rules governing AI use.
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey. An undated set of practice directions on artificial intelligence can be downloaded from the Prince Edward Island courts’ website.
Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island
The court did not participate in the survey. An undated set of practice directions on artificial intelligence can be downloaded from the Prince Edward Island courts’ website.
Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island
The court did not participate in the survey. An undated set of practice directions on artificial intelligence can be downloaded from the Prince Edward Island courts’ website.
Newfoundland and Labrador
Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
A court spokesperson said the court does not currently sanction the use of genAI tools by judges and law clerks in their daily work.
To date, the court has not issued any guidance, policies, or practice directions on AI use by judges, law clerks, or litigants. However, the court is aware of the CJC guidelines.
The spokesperson said the use of genAI tools in court settings is a topic of interest for the appellate court, which is continuing to monitor and consider the issue.
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
The court did not participate in the survey. In October 2023, the court issued a notice urging lawyers and litigants to exercise caution, rely on credible sources, and have a “human in the loop” when using AI tools.
Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
The court did not participate in the survey.
Yukon
Yukon Court of Appeal
Rules for judges: Justices of the court follow the CJC guidelines, including the tenet that judicial decision-making power cannot be delegated.
A court spokesperson noted that the CJC’s Ethical Principle for Judges, which lays out a framework for the ethical obligations of Canada’s judges, requires judges to develop and maintain proficiency with technology relevant to their judicial duties.
Rules for law clerks: The spokesperson noted that law clerks who support the BC Court of Appeal also provide legal research support to the YKCA. Yukon law clerks follow the BCCA’s AI guidelines, which bar them from using genAI tools to support judicial work, with limited exceptions.
These exceptions include referring to the AI-generated case summaries that CanLII provides for cases and legislation. Law clerks can also use AI-generated summaries of cases to navigate a case or get a snapshot of its relevance. However, they cannot cite these summaries directly.
When conducting legal research, they can use CanLII Search+, which allows users to pose research questions using plain language. The tool converts these questions into structured search terms, which are then used to retrieve relevant case law. Search results yield a list of linked cases rather than an AI-generated memo with analysis or comment.
Rules for lawyers/litigants: The Yukon Court of Appeal Act requires the court to conform to the BCCA's rules closely. Lawyers and litigants appearing before the YKCA must therefore follow the BCCA registrar’s filing directive, which notes, under s. 7.3, that all litigants “are responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of all materials filed with the court.”
The section is titled “Use of Litigation Aids & Artificial Intelligence.”
Training for judges and court staff: Members of the YKCA who are also members of the BCCA participate in committees and forums related to learning about genAI, including the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada’s action committee on modernizing court operations, the CJC technology committee, and the National Center for State Courts’ AI policy consortium.
Penalties for non-compliance: Individuals who file inaccurate materials to the court due to their use of AI tools will be penalized with remedies typically available to the court in cases of misconduct, including orders for costs.
Future plans related to genAI: The spokesperson said the court will collaborate “with stakeholders to respond to changes in the use of genAI in ways that ensure the integrity of the legal proceedings and safeguard public confidence in the justice system.”
Supreme Court of Yukon
Rules for lawyers/litigants: Lawyers and litigants must comply with a practice direction issued by the court in June 2023, which requires them to disclose what AI tools they’ve used and for what purpose when they rely on AI for their legal research or submissions.
On June 2, 2026, the court issued a second practice direction outlining the conditions on the use of gen AI in written and oral submissions.
Penalties for non-compliance: The June 2026 practice direction states that failure to comply can result in an assessment of costs, including personal costs.
Training for judges and court staff: Judges and legal counsel at the Supreme Court of Yukon and the Yukon Territorial Court will be participating in a genAI training session in August 2026.
The court’s chief justice recently completed a Canadian Bar Association course on AI for judges.
Future plans related to genAI: The court is currently reviewing other courts’ AI policies and plans to further develop its own policies before and during the August training session.
Yukon Territorial Court
Training for judges and court staff: Judges and legal counsel at the Supreme Court of Yukon and the Yukon Territorial Court will be participating in a genAI training session in August 2026.
Future plans related to genAI: The court plans to develop a genAI policy following the August 2026 training session.
Yukon Small Claims Court
A spokesperson for the court said it does not currently have any practice directions for lawyers or litigants.
Northwest Territories
Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories
The court did not participate in the survey.
Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories
Rules for lawyers/litigants: In October 2025, the court issued a practice direction for lawyers and litigants that emphasizes caution, reliance on credible sources, and human involvement.
A court spokesperson said the court is currently considering additional AI policies.
Training for judges and court staff: All public servants of the government of the Northwest Territories can enroll in an AI training course titled “AI training for public servants: The age of the agent for public service.”
AI tools used by the court: The spokesperson said the court uses AI speech-to-text transcription services offered by For the Record. The service is currently only available to courts. Other clients include trial courts across the US.
Northwest Territories Territorial Court
Rules for lawyers/litigants: The court is currently considering implementing a practice direction.
Nunavut
Nunavut Court of Appeal
The court did not participate in the survey.
Nunavut Court of Justice
The court did not participate in the survey.
Youth Justice Court of Nunavut
The court did not participate in the survey.
Nunavut Justice of the Peace Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
Nunavut Small Claims Court
The court did not participate in the survey.
