What courts expect when you use AI

Start with your court

AI use does not replace legal judgment or source review. Find the current rules and notices for the court, type of proceeding and region. Keep the text and date you checked. The steps below are a starting point, not a complete statement of every duty.

Ontario civil proceedings

Part J.12 of the Superior Court’s civil practice direction calls for oversight and verification against authoritative sources. It applies to civil proceedings other than Divisional Court and Small Claims Court proceedings. Those courts have their own directions. See paragraphs 122–128, especially 124–126. [source]

The practice direction reproduces rule 4.06.1(2.1) at paragraph 125. A factum must have the required statement about the authenticity of each cited authority. The rule permits a signature by the party’s lawyer or a person specifically authorized on the lawyer’s behalf. Check the current rule on e-Laws, including the listed-source presumption in subrule (2.2). [source]

A real decision may still fail to support the claim made about it. Check existence, quoted words, the relevant passage and context as separate steps. Do not treat a certificate about authenticity as proof that the argument is right.

Federal Court materials

The Federal Court’s May 7, 2024 notice requires a declaration in the first paragraph of litigation materials filed with the Court if AI directly generated content. It distinguishes that use from suggestions, recommendations or critique of text written by a person. Certified Tribunal Records and expert reports are outside this notice; the notice refers expert reports to a separate methodology-disclosure framework. Read its full scope and check for updates before filing. [source]

A source-review record

Record the authority, pinpoint, source opened, passage checked, reviewer and date. Keep any unresolved issue visible. Check the firm’s approved tool, data terms and settings before using client files. If the source cannot be verified, resolve that problem before treating it as support.

Try it

A draft cites twelve authorities. The note says, “All citations verified by the AI tool.” What else do you need?

Check your understanding

The tool’s assurance is not enough. Open the authorities in recognized sources. Check the passages and quotations against each claim. Confirm the applicable court requirements and who may sign. Keep the review record. Do not infer that a real citation proves the proposition.

Sources and further reading

Linked sources support the technical background identified below. The legal workflows, prompts, and fictional examples are original editorial exercises; they are not claims of endorsement by the linked authors.

Official court directionOntario SCJ — Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction, Part J.12, paras122–128

AI oversight and verification; paragraph125 reproduces factum certification rule. Updated March17 2026; civil scope excludes Divisional and Small Claims proceedings. Primary page checked16 October2026.

Official court noticeFederal Court — AI notice, May7 2024, pp1–2

Declaration for directly AI-generated litigation content; suggestions/critique distinction and separate treatment of tribunal records/expert reports. Primary notice checked16 October2026; recheck before filing.

Primary legislation — current text to checkOntario Rules of Civil Procedure — r4.06.1

Factum authenticity certification and listed-source presumption. Direct e-Laws access was blocked in this review; relevant rule wording checked in official SCJ practice direction para125.

The short version