AI rules for lawyers, by country · Canada · North America
Canada: the rules, and the four cases
Canadian Judicial Council guidelines (Sept 2024) · Federal Court practice notice (20 Dec 2023) · Ontario Superior Court practice directions · four decided matters
Page verified 5 August 2026. The Ontario practice directions and the Ko v. Li endorsement were read at source. The Judicial Council guidelines and the Federal Court notice were not opened from this session and are recorded from official listings.
Canada has more AI law on this subject than anywhere except the United States, and almost none of it is in one place. Four instruments, four decided matters, four jurisdictions. This page is the index.
The rules
- Federal CourtPractice notice and interim principles, 20 December 2023. Requires a declaration where AI generated content in a court document; directs verification against trusted sources such as CanLII and official court websites; the Court commits not to use automated decision-making tools in judgments and orders without public consultation first.
- OntarioSuperior Court of Justice. AI provisions in all three consolidated provincial practice directions, civil, family and criminal. Verification against trusted sources, and citations hyperlinked to CanLII. Criminal direction: “The court will not tolerate inadvertence in this regard.”
- National, judgesCanadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts, September 2024. AI cannot supplant judges’ exclusive responsibility for decision-making.
- ProfessionalLaw Society guidance, including the Law Society of Alberta’s Generative AI Playbook and the Law Society of Ontario’s Futures Committee white paper of April 2024, which the Ontario practice directions name.
The cases
- Feb 2024Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285. Special costs refused for want of bad faith; personal costs ordered under Family Rule 16-1(30) instead; counsel ordered to review every other file before the court and report within 30 days.
- 2025Hussein v. Canada, 2025 FC 1060. Special costs, because concealment of reliance on AI amounted to misleading the court.
- 2025, liveKo v. Li, Ontario. A purged contempt reopened as criminal contempt, carriage referred to the Attorney General of Ontario, amicus appointed, Law Society investigating. Undecided.
What Canada contributes to the global picture
Three remedies that exist nowhere else, all of them worse for a practitioner than a fine:
- The file reviewZhang. Go back through every other matter and report in thirty days. No American court has copied it.
- Fault without bad faithZhang again. Special costs need reprehensible conduct; a rule with no bad-faith requirement was used instead. That means a lawyer who was merely careless is still liable personally.
- Criminal jeopardyKo v. Li. The only matter anywhere where the Crown has taken carriage.
What to do about it
Seven days free, then $349 a month. Or run it across the estate.
The Federal Court asks for a declaration. Ontario asks for hyperlinked, verified citations. British Columbia ordered a lawyer to go back through every file. All three are the same question asked in different tenses, and a record made at the time answers all three. The same engine either way: a signed record made on your own machine, content-free, and checkable free by anyone, forever.
Start the free weekOr Regulayer for enterprise →
See also the attorney certification, the free verifier, and every jurisdiction we track.
Sources
- Federal Court of Canada, artificial intelligence. Not opened from this session.
- Canadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts. Not opened from this session.
- Ontario practice directions and the Ko v. Li endorsement of 4 December 2025 were read at source; see those pages.
Related
Checked 5 August 2026. Mixed sourcing, marked above. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on Canadian law.
Common questions
Do Canadian lawyers have to declare when they use AI?
In the Federal Court, yes. Its practice notice of 20 December 2023 requires a declaration where AI was used to generate content in a court document, and directs litigants to verify authorities against trusted sources such as CanLII and official court websites. Ontario's practice directions require verification and hyperlinked citations rather than a declaration.
Can Canadian judges use AI?
The Canadian Judicial Council's Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts, published in September 2024, state that AI cannot supplant judges' exclusive responsibility for decision-making. The Federal Court has separately committed not to use automated decision-making tools in making its judgments and orders without first holding a public consultation.
What is the most serious AI case in Canada?
Ko v. Li in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Fake citations in a factum led to a contempt proceeding which was purged in May 2025. After the lawyer wrote to the court admitting her earlier account had been untrue, the court began a fresh criminal contempt proceeding and referred carriage to the Attorney General of Ontario. It is the only criminal contempt proceeding of its kind anywhere and it is undecided.
Which Canadian courts have AI rules?
On this record: the Federal Court, since December 2023; the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, with AI provisions in all three consolidated provincial practice directions, civil, family and criminal; and nationally the Canadian Judicial Council's guidelines for judges. Decided cases exist in British Columbia, Ontario and the Federal Court.
Information, not legal advice, and not advice on the law of any jurisdiction. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.