Using AI in the Courtroom and Emerging Issues
Artificial intelligence is now part of everyday life—and increasingly, part of the courtroom. From generative AI-assisted document drafting to algorithm-driven decisions, various Canadian courts are clarifying how AI can be used in litigation without compromising fairness or the rule of law.
For litigants searching terms like “AI in Canadian courts” or “AI disclosure requirements in litigation,” the message is: use may be permitted —but accountability and oversight are mandatory.
The Federal Court’s Guidance on AI Use: Disclosure and Responsible Use
On May 7, 2024, the Federal Court of Canada issued a formal Notice addressing the use of AI in court proceedings.
The key takeaway: AI may be used—but transparency and human oversight are mandatory.
If a party files a document with the Federal Court that includes AI-generated content (meaning content created by generative AI systems), the document must clearly disclose that AI was used. For submissions, the first paragraph must include a declaration stating that generative AI was used to prepare the document, either in its entirety, or identifying the specific paragraphs for which AI was used. The responsibility for accuracy remains entirely with the lawyer or litigant.
The Federal Court also issued an earlier Notice on December 20, 2023, emphasizing that legal authorities must be verified using trusted sources such as CanLII and official court websites. AI-generated citations that are inaccurate—or entirely fabricated—can seriously undermine credibility and may attract judicial criticism or cost consequences.
For reference, the Court’s official Notices can be accessed directly through the Federal Court’s website.
How Courts Are Using AI Themselves
The Federal Court announced interim principles on September 29, 2025, governing its own approach to the use of AI. The Court confirmed it will not use generative AI to decide cases or write judgments without public consultation. The Court will continue to consult experts and stakeholders concerning new uses of AI.
However, AI may assist with administrative efficiency, research, and processing large volumes of information, as well as translation support—provided there is human verification and adherence to principles such as accountability, transparency, accuracy, cybersecurity, non-discrimination, and respect for fundamental rights.
Judicial independence remains paramount.
Cost Consequences for Inappropriate Use of AI in the Courtroom
In J.R.V. v. N.L.V., 2025 BCSC 1137, the court recently considered the issue of costs in the context of generative AI use by the respondent in preparing her written argument, resulting in citations to non-existent cases. In this case, the respondent was self-represented. She apologized to the court and advised that she did not know AI could provide non-existent case citations when she prepared her written argument. She did not rely on any non-existent case citations during the hearing. The court made a small costs award payable to the claimant in the circumstances.
In Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285, where a lawyer used AI to prepare court filings and had cited non-existent cases in materials submitted on behalf of her client, the court was less forgiving, and ordered costs to be paid personally by the lawyer. In that case, the court held that:
[29] Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement … Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Courts in other jurisdictions in Canada have similarly ordered costs consequences for the misuse of generative AI:
The Federal Court has also similarly ordered costs consequences for the misuse of generative AI. In Hussein v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1060, special costs were awarded where counsel submitted several cases that either did not exist or were inaccurately cited for specific propositions of law and was less than forthcoming regarding his reliance on generative AI.
The specific circumstances of each case will influence the severity of cost orders granted by the court for the misuse of generative AI: Zou v. Miracon Development Inc., 2026 BCSC 85, at para. 24. However, recent decisions make clear that inaccurate and irresponsible use of generative AI in the litigation process will have consequences, and it is the human behind the tool that remains responsible: Wu v. Murray, 2025 BCCA 365, at para. 14.
Disclaimer: This content is provided solely for informational purposes and is not intended for use in any legal proceeding. You should consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
