Artificial intelligence is no longer a peripheral issue in civil litigation. Its use is now expressly addressed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Part J: General Provisions, section 12 of the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Directions, entitled The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Court Proceedings. The Court’s message is direct: while AI tools may be used, responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of Court materials remains, without exception, with counsel and litigants.
Section 12 situates AI within a core principle of civil practice, the integrity of the justice system depends on accuracy, and accuracy cannot be outsourced to technology. The Court identifies the most common misuse of AI as careless reliance on “hallucinations,” including fictitious cases, mischaracterized authorities, and fabricated quotations. Importantly, the Practice Direction makes clear that misuse may occur even where counsel did not personally interact with the AI tool. Oversight must be careful, informed, and ongoing, and the Court expressly states that it will not tolerate inadvertence in this regard.
For counsel, section 12 explicitly ties the use of AI in Court proceedings to professional and ethical obligations under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. In doing so, the Practice Direction directs lawyers to the LSO Futures Committee’s White Paper on licensees’ use of generative AI (April 2024), which provides guidance on how those obligations apply when legal services are delivered with the assistance of AI. The linkage is deliberate. The Court’s guidance mirrors the White Paper’s central premise: AI may assist with legal work, but it does not replace legal judgment, supervision, or accountability. Whatever role AI plays in preparing materials, the final product remains the lawyer’s responsibility.
Section 12 also reinforces that existing procedural obligations apply fully in the AI context. Counsel and litigants are reminded of their duties under Rule 4.06.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the requirement for pinpoint citations and a signed certification confirming satisfaction as to the authenticity of every authority cited in a factum. Relatedly, the Practice Direction emphasizes compliance with the Court’s hyperlinking requirements for factums, compendiums, and books of authorities, including hyperlinks to publicly available sources such as CanLII where available. AI‑generated citations that are inaccurate, unverifiable, or improperly linked will not meet these standards.
The Court also addresses consequences. Where duties to the Court are not met, section 12 confirms that a range of responses may follow, including cost sanctions, adjournments, dismissal of proceedings, contempt proceedings, or referral to the Law Society of Ontario. The appropriate response will depend on the circumstances, but the availability of these remedies underscores the seriousness with which AI misuse will be treated.
Read together, Part J, section 12 of the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Directions and the LSO White Paper deliver a consistent and cautionary message. AI is not prohibited, but it is not neutral. It is a tool that demands heightened vigilance. For civil litigators, including those practising in estate litigation, the takeaway is straightforward: efficiency gains offered by AI do not justify shortcuts. Accuracy, verification, and professional responsibility remain paramount, regardless of the technology used.
Thanks for reading!
Osama Saleemi