If you practice law in Ontario, you better read this new Practice Direction reproduced below [and the sanctions for any breach]:
The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Court Proceedings
Maintaining the integrity of the justice system is the shared responsibility of all justice sector participants. As officers of the court, lawyers and Family Legal Service Providers (“FLSPs”) play a pronounced role in ensuring its fair and proper administration.
Without exception, however, it is the responsibility of all counsel, FLSPs, and litigants to guarantee accuracy when preparing materials for use in court proceedings, and particularly when using AI, regardless of whether they directly interacted with the technology.
The misuse of AI is detrimental to the justice system and can occur in any number of ways. Most often, it occurs when counsel, FLSPs or litigants carelessly rely on fictitious authorities generated by AI, commonly referred to as “hallucinations”. Hallucinations can consist of non-existent cases, mischaracterizations of case law, and fabricated quotations. To avoid these risks, counsel, FLSPs and litigants must exercise careful, informed, and ongoing oversight at all times when they or their staff use AI for court proceedings. The court will not tolerate inadvertence in this regard.
The court directs counsel, FLSPs and litigants to consider the following, as applicable, when using AI for court proceedings:
For Counsel and FLSPs
1. The Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Counsel and FLSPs are reminded that their use of AI for court proceedings must comply with their professional duties and ethical obligations set out in Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct and Complete Paralegal Rules of Conduct. The LSO Futures Committee’s White Paper (April 2024) on licensees’ use of generative AI offers guidance on how the Rules of Professional Conduct apply when legal services are delivered with the assistance of AI.
For Counsel, FLSPs & Litigants
1. Use authoritative sources to verify citations. AI-generated references may include incorrect or fictitious legal authorities. All legal information obtained using the assistance of AI must be verified against trusted and authoritative sources.
2. Comply with obligations under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings to hyperlink cases to published websites when submitting factums, summaries of argument, compendiums and books of authorities.
3. Each party’s factum or summary of argument shall hyperlink authorities to a publicly available, free website such as CanLII, whenever they are available on such a website (Consolidated Provincial Practice Directions for Family Proceedings, Part I F2(c)).
4. Each time a case is cited in the factum or summary of argument, it must include a paragraph reference to the case, with the applicable paragraph also hyperlinked (Consolidated Provincial Practice Directions for Family Proceedings, Part I F2C (f)).
5. Where a party files an electronic book of authorities, authorities that are available on a free public website such as CanLII shall be linked from the table of contents only. Authorities that are not available on a free public website, such as unreported decisions, decisions only available on approved private electronic databases (e.g., databases that are dedicated to the publication of judicial decisions (e.g., LexisNexis Quicklaw and Westlaw)), and excerpts from textbooks, shall be included in full. The book of authorities shall have a table of contents that has internal hyperlinks to the cases and textbook excerpts contained within it
Potential Sanctions for Misuse of Artificial Intelligence for Court Proceedings
The court has a range of powers to ensure that counsel, FLSPs and litigants comply with their duties to the court. Where those duties are not complied with, the court’s powers include, but are not limited to, public reprimand of the counsel, FLSPs, or litigant, ordering costs, fines and/or penalties, adjourning or dismissing, as the case may be, a hearing, motion, conference or case, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and in regards to counsel and FLSPs, referral to the Law Society of Ontario. In each instance, the court’s response will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Editorial note: This article was first published on LinkedIn in November 2025 and is republished here for reference.
Share this article on: