AI Rules for Canadian Lawyers: What the Federal Court and Law Societies Say

General information, not legal advice. Guidance changes, so open each source for its current version and check the rules of the court or tribunal you appear before. Every quotation here is copied from the body's own document, read on 25 September 2026.

Much of what circulates about AI and the law societies is second-hand. Here is what the documents themselves say, starting with a rule that is a requirement rather than guidance.

A requirement: the Federal Court declaration

If you file in the Federal Court, its notice of May 7, 2024 applies:

“The Court expects parties to proceedings before the Court to inform it, and each other, if documents they submit to the Court, that have been prepared for the purposes of litigation, include content created or generated by artificial intelligence ("AI"). This shall be done by a Declaration in the first paragraph stating that AI was used in preparing the document, either in its entirety or only for specifically identified paragraphs (the "Declaration").”

Federal Court, Notice on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings, May 7, 2024

The notice says a declaration is not needed when AI only suggested changes to text a person wrote, and is needed when AI's role “resembles that of a co-author.” The Court's practice guidelines name the consequence of not complying:

“Failure to comply with the Notice may result in consequences for parties and/or counsel, including the imposition of an adverse cost award or an order to show cause why the party or counsel in question should not be held in contempt.”

Federal Court, Amended Consolidated General Practice Guidelines, June 20, 2025, para. 17

Other courts and tribunals set their own rules. The Ontario Land Tribunal, for example, requires a declaration in the first paragraph of any document where generative AI created content, for hearing events starting on or after March 30, 2026 (its Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Tribunal Proceedings, last updated January 29, 2026). Check the rules of the court or tribunal you appear before.

What the law societies agree on

The law society documents describe themselves as guidance on how your existing obligations apply to AI. Read side by side, most come back to the same points:

• Verify what AI produces yourself before you rely on it, including every citation.
• Do not put confidential or privileged client information into a tool that cannot protect it.
• Understand the tool you use, and remain responsible for the work.
• Consider telling clients, and in some provinces obtaining consent, when AI is used on their file.
• Do not bill for the time the tool saved you.

Ontario puts the first point this way:

“Always independently verify any information produced by generative AI that you intend to rely on. The verification process should be completed by a human being, not the AI system itself.”

Law Society of Ontario, Generative AI: Your professional obligations, April 10, 2024

Where Québec goes further

The Barreau du Québec's practical guide (2nd edition, in French) says that merely entering information protected by professional secrecy into an open AI system is itself a breach, even if nothing is reproduced or disclosed. And from April 1, 2026 the Barreau made a two-hour AI course mandatory for all members, to be completed before April 1, 2027.

Every body, in its own words

The full guide quotes the Federal Court and nine law societies (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador), each with a link to its own document, and says where we found nothing.

Read the full guide, society by society

Checking citations

Every document asks you to verify AI output, citations included. Our free checker does the first step: paste text or an AI answer and it looks up each case citation in a case-law database, links you to the decision it found, and says plainly which it could not find. It does not tell you whether a case is still good law, and it does not replace your own reading.