Tribunals Ontario

Who it binds

Tribunals Ontario describes itself as a group of twelve adjudicative tribunals resolving disputes in the social, property assessment, safety and licensing sectors. The practice direction is addressed to participants in proceedings before it, and to its own members.

• HousingLandlord and Tenant Board
• RightsHuman Rights Tribunal of Ontario
• BenefitsSocial Benefits Tribunal, Ontario Special Education Tribunal
• LicensingLicence Appeal Tribunal, General Service and Automobile Accident Benefits Service
• PropertyAssessment Review Board
• SafetyFire Safety Commission, Animal Care Review Board
• Child, familyChild and Family Services Review Board, Custody Review Board
• ParoleOntario Parole Board

That list matters to how the direction reads. These are the forums where a party is most often self-represented, and the text is written for that reader: short, plain, addressed as “you”, and published in French alongside the English.

The rule on the adjudicator

“Adjudication is a human responsibility. Tribunal members hear cases and make decisions based on the evidence and submissions provided by parties. They do not use AI to write decisions or analyze evidence. Tribunal members are fully accountable for their decision-making.”

Read the verbs. Not “should not”, not “must exercise caution”. The tribunal states as present fact what its members do and do not do, then names where accountability sits. Two activities are carved out by name, writing the decision and analysing the evidence, which are the two points at which an adjudicator exercises the authority the legislature gave them.

This is why the page exists separately from the Superior Court’s. Those three practice directions bind filers and say nothing about judicial use of AI; the rule for Canadian judges sits in the Canadian Judicial Council’s separate guidelines. Tribunals Ontario puts the adjudicator rule and the party duties in one document, and puts the adjudicator first.

What it asks of parties

Three headings, in the direction’s own order and its own words.

• Be cautious“AI results can be wrong.” If AI is used to find legal sources or analyse information, the results must be double-checked carefully. Parties are responsible for the accuracy of any case law, articulations of legal principles, or evidence that is tendered.
• Reliable sources“AI might give you incorrect or made-up legal sources.” Verify by going directly to trusted sources: court or tribunal websites, official publishers, or recognised legal databases such as CanLII for case law.
• Human responsibility“You are responsible for the accuracy of your written and oral submissions, even if AI helped prepare them.” Cross-check against reliable databases. The direction gives its reason in one line: “This protects the integrity of our justice system.”

Note that the duty reaches oral submissions as well as written ones. Most instruments on this record attach to the document that is filed. This one attaches to what is said at the hearing too.

A footnote defines the term rather than leaving it to the reader: artificial intelligence includes systems called large language models, which the direction describes as a type of AI that can understand and create human-like text by learning from a large amount of data.

What it does not require

There is no disclosure obligation and no declaration. The direction was read in full for this page, and it contains no requirement to tell the tribunal or the other side that AI was used, no form of words to sign, and no certification attached to a filing. Nothing in it asks a party to announce anything.

That is a deliberate position and worth stating plainly, because the instruments arriving elsewhere are moving the other way. Ireland’s High Court Practice Direction HC 142, commencing 1 September 2026, prescribes a declaration. Qatar’s QICDRC direction requires no pre-emptive declaration but obliges a Court User to be ready to identify the AI-assisted portions and explain the verification, on affidavit if the court asks. Tribunals Ontario asks for neither.

What it does ask for is accuracy, and it places responsibility for accuracy on the party, whatever helped prepare the work. So the exposure here is not a missed declaration. It is being unable to show what was checked when accuracy is questioned.

How it sits beside the Superior Court

• AdjudicatorSuperior Court: no rule on judicial use in the directions. Tribunals Ontario: members do not use AI to write decisions or analyse evidence.
• VerifyBoth require AI-generated references to be checked against trusted, authoritative sources.
• HyperlinkSuperior Court: citations in factums, compendiums and books of authorities must be hyperlinked to freely available sites such as CanLII. Tribunals Ontario: no hyperlinking requirement.
• CertifySuperior Court: authenticity certification under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Criminal Proceedings Rules. Tribunals Ontario: none.
• ConsequencesSuperior Court: public reprimand, costs, adjournment or dismissal, Law Society referral, contempt. Tribunals Ontario: the direction names none.

Two instruments, one province, and the same underlying question answered at different depths. Practise in both and you are working to two standards on the same day.

The direction says of itself that the field is evolving rapidly, that Tribunals Ontario will continue to monitor its use and impact, and that it will adjust the direction as necessary. Check the live page before you rely on the version described here.

Sources

• Tribunals Ontario, Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Tribunal Proceedings, April 2025, read in full
• Tribunals Ontario, for the constitution of the twelve tribunals and its description of itself
• The direction is also published in French, linked from the English page as Disponible en français.

Related

• Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the same province, three directions, a heavier standard
• Canada, every Canadian instrument we have read at source
• Qatar, the other instrument that declines to require a pre-emptive declaration
• Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62, on material that carried the signals of authorisation without the authorisation
• Every verified AI standing order

Checked 27 August 2026 against Tribunals Ontario’s own published direction, read in full. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on practice before any Ontario tribunal.