Court incidents, official rule revisions and analysis in Canada, as they enter the record. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.https://safelegalai.comen-gbCC BY 4.0 — SafeLegalAI, published by Cognesio LLPhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/may-judges-use-ai-explainerhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/may-judges-use-ai-explainerThe regulation map records 39 country answers on judicial AI use: binding rules, guidance, proposals and one case-law answer.Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-federalcanadaaustraliaindiainternationalotherhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/must-lawyers-verify-ai-output-explainerhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/must-lawyers-verify-ai-output-explainerAcross 130 country records, 50 have a binding, guidance, proposed or case-law answer on verification of AI output.Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-federalus-statecanadaaustraliaindiasingaporeinternationalotherhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/arbuckle-v-tannerhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/arbuckle-v-tannerThe Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed a family-law appeal for failure to perfect it and ordered lump-sum costs of CAD 20,000 after the self-represented appellant filed AI-generated transcripts containing invented testimony and a forged transcriber's certificate. Gogan J.A. rejected his explanation that the AI had hallucinated the certification, calling the filing knowingly misleading. Primary source: Arbuckle v. Tanner, 2026 NSCA 62 (12 Aug 2026), chambers decision (Charlotin database archive PDF of the CanLII judgment) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2828/Arbuckle-v.-Tanner-2026-NSCA-62.pdfWed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/ap-v-sk-qcca-1092https://safelegalai.com/tracker/ap-v-sk-qcca-1092The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered a self-represented family-law appellant to pay CAD 1,000 under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure after he conceded that four cited judgments, including two attributed to the Supreme Court of Canada, were ChatGPT fabrications. The court held that litigants cannot assume AI output is free of hallucinations. Primary source: Droit de la famille, 261234, 2026 QCCA 1092 (11 Aug 2026), judgment (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2830/AP_v._SK_Canada_11_August_2026.pdfTue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/lee-v-law-society-of-ontariohttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/lee-v-law-society-of-ontarioThe Law Society Tribunal suspended Toronto lawyer Jisuh Lee's licence for six months and ordered CAD 10,000 in costs after she filed a factum containing AI-generated fictitious or irrelevant precedents in a family law proceeding that had become an estate matter. It follows Mazaheri (June 2026) and is reported as Ontario's first licence suspension for AI misuse. Primary source: Lee v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONLSTH 136 (CanLII; mirrored PDF of the tribunal reasons read 5 Sep 2026; CanLII blocks automated access) — https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2026/2026onlsth136/2026onlsth136.htmlThu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/resources/guidance/canada-law-society-ai-guidance-historyhttps://safelegalai.com/resources/guidance/canada-law-society-ai-guidance-historyThe version record of Canadian law-society generative-AI guidance — LSBC (2023), the LSO white paper (2024), Alberta's Rules of Engagement, and the CBA toolkit.Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticlecanadahttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/ko-v-lihttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/ko-v-liAn Ontario lawyer filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then lied about writing it — and drew a criminal-contempt referral to the Attorney General.Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticlecanadavendor:openai-chatgpthttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kibondo-kilongozi-v-canadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kibondo-kilongozi-v-canadaIn a judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada concerning a Congolese child's adoption-based visa, Justice Gascon expressly found that a Federal Court of Appeal decision cited by the applicants' counsel did not exist. The finding accompanied criticism of counsel's non-compliance with scheduling orders, though the court recorded no separate costs sanction for the fabricated citation. Primary source: Kibondo-Kilongozi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 928 (10 Jul 2026), judgment (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2908/Kibondo-Kilongozi-v.-Canada-Citizenship-and-Immigration-2026-FC-928.pdfFri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-bc-provincial-court-ai-guidancehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-bc-provincial-court-ai-guidancePlain-language guidance published by the Provincial Court of British Columbia on 8 July 2026 for lawyers and self-represented litigants. It warns of hallucinated citations, requires independent verification, asks users to hyperlink authorities, requires an honest answer if a judge asks whether AI was used, and cautions against uploading personal information to AI tools. Primary source: BC Provincial Court — eNews guidance — https://provincialcourt.bc.ca/news-notices-policies-and-practice-directions/enews/07-07-2026Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-on-scj-practice-directions-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-on-scj-practice-directions-aiAI section added to the consolidated civil, family and criminal provincial practice directions; civil direction last updated 17 March 2026. Announced 12 February 2026 and added to the Ontario Superior Court's consolidated civil, family and criminal practice directions. The directions require all legal information obtained with AI assistance to be verified against trusted and authoritative sources, require authorities to be hyperlinked to publicly accessible sites such as CanLII, and set out the consequences of misuse. Primary source: Ontario Superior Court — Consolidated practice directions, AI section added — https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/news/new-practice-directions-on-the-responsible-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-court-proceedings/Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-sk-kb-ga-pd-12-artificial-intelligencehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-sk-kb-ga-pd-12-artificial-intelligenceSigned by Chief Justice M.D. Popescul and effective 1 January 2026. The directive does not prohibit appropriate AI use; it places the onus on whoever files or presents materials to ensure accuracy, authenticity and reliability, and requires independent verification of every AI-derived authority against official, commercial or CanLII sources. Primary source: Saskatchewan King's Bench — GA-PD #12 — https://sasklawcourts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/KB_GA-PD-12.pdfThu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/ko-v-lihttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/ko-v-liIn Ontario, lawyer Jisuh Lee filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then admitted she had lied about authorship after initially blaming others. Justice Myers referred a criminal-contempt prosecution to Ontario's Attorney General, and the Law Society Tribunal later suspended Lee for six months and ordered CAD 10,000 costs for misconduct including dishonesty. Primary source: Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965 (CanLII) — https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc2965/2025onsc2965.htmlThu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/specter-aviation-v-lapradehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/specter-aviation-v-lapradeIn Quebec, a self-represented litigant in Specter Aviation c. Laprade is reported to have filed a contestation containing eight AI-generated fabricated or irrelevant citations produced with ChatGPT. The Quebec Superior Court reportedly imposed a CAD $5,000 penalty under article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reportedly Quebec's first AI-misuse sanction. The primary judgment remains to be confirmed. Primary source: Specter Aviation Limited c. Laprade, 2025 QCCS 3521 (CanLII, French) — primary not machine-readable (CanLII CAPTCHA); corroborated by Gowling WLG, McMillan, Norton Rose Fulbright, Lavery — https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs3521/2025qccs3521.htmlWed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-interim-ai-principleshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-interim-ai-principlesInterim principles published by the Federal Court of Canada on 29 September 2025 governing the court's own use of AI. The court commits not to use AI or automated decision-making in determining the outcome of cases without prior public consultation, and sets accountability, transparency and confidentiality requirements for administrative uses by judges and staff. Primary source: Federal Court of Canada — Interim principles — https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligenceMon, 29 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/reddy-v-saroyahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/reddy-v-saroyaIn Reddy v Saroya, the Court of Appeal of Alberta held that an appellant's factum containing seven fabricated authorities — produced by a contractor using generative AI — was the signing lawyer's responsibility. It signalled personal costs; a later order (reported as 2026 ABCA 20, CAD $17,550) is said to be Canada's first personal-costs order for AI hallucinations. Primary source: Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322 (CanLII) — https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2025/2025abca322/2025abca322.htmlFri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/hussein-v-canadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/hussein-v-canadaIn Canada's Federal Court, applicant's counsel in an immigration matter is reported to have relied on the AI tool Visto.ai, which hallucinated the governing legal test and two non-existent cases, and to have concealed the AI use. The court reportedly found a special reason for costs and signalled personal liability; the primary judgment remains to be confirmed. Primary source: Hussein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1060 (CanLII) — primary not machine-readable (CanLII CAPTCHA); corroborated by McCarthy Tétrault, Gowling WLG, Bennett Jones, Slaw — https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc1060/2025fc1060.htmlSun, 01 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/r-v-chandhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/r-v-chandIn Ontario, in the criminal trial R. v. Chand, defence counsel is reported to have filed final submissions containing a fictitious citation and unrelated authorities consistent with generative AI. Justice Kenkel rejected the submissions and directed counsel to prepare a fresh set with pinpoint citations and no generative-AI use. The primary judgment remains to be confirmed. Primary source: R. v. Chand, 2025 ONCJ 282 (CanLII) — primary not machine-readable (CanLII CAPTCHA); corroborated by CBC News, Law360 Canada, WeirFoulds — https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj282/2025oncj282.htmlMon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagementhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagementRefreshed for newer tools and Canadian court practice directions; original published January 2024. A practical resource from the Law Society of Alberta, first published January 2024 and updated March 2025, setting out rules of engagement for Canadian lawyers using generative AI. It is permissive with cautions: verify everything, protect confidentiality and privilege, understand the tool, comply with court disclosure directions, and keep the lawyer accountable for the work. Primary source: Law Society of Alberta — March 2025 update — https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-centre/key-resources/professional-conduct/gen-ai-rules-of-engagement-for-canadian-lawyers/Sat, 01 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-qc-barreau-generative-ai-practical-guidehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-qc-barreau-generative-ai-practical-guideLaunched on 25 October 2024, the Barreau du Quebec's practical guide to responsible use of generative AI applies the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers to AI-assisted practice. It requires verification, confidentiality safeguards and competence, and directs members to comply with the AI notices issued by the Quebec and federal courts. Primary source: Barreau du Québec — Original — https://www.barreau.qc.ca/media/bnddaqfd/guide-intelligence-artificielle-generative.pdfFri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-ai-noticehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-ai-noticeClarifies the scope of the declaration requirement and the meaning of AI-generated content; retains the human-in-the-loop principle. The Federal Court of Canada's notice, first issued 20 December 2023 and updated 7 May 2024, requires parties and counsel to declare in the first paragraph of any document containing AI-generated content that AI was used to prepare it, and to verify that content. It was among the first mandatory disclosure rules for court filings in a common-law jurisdiction. Primary source: Federal Court of Canada — Updated notice — https://www.fct-cf.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/FC-Updated-AI-Notice-EN.pdfTue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paperhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paperThe Law Society of Ontario's April 2024 white paper on licensee use of generative AI applies the Rules of Professional Conduct and Paralegal Rules to lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. It is permissive with cautions: licensees must verify output, protect confidentiality and privilege, remain competent, and need not disclose AI use to clients solely because AI was used. Primary source: LSO — April 2024 — https://lawsocietyontario-dwd0dscmayfwh7bj.a01.azurefd.net/media/lso/media/lawyers/practice-supports-resources/white-paper-on-licensee-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-en.pdfMon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/zhang-v-chenhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/zhang-v-chenThe first reported Canadian case of AI-hallucinated citations: a Vancouver family lawyer cited two ChatGPT-invented cases in a notice of application, was ordered to pay costs personally, had her other files reviewed, and faced a Law Society of British Columbia investigation. Primary source: Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285 (CanLII) — https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2024/2024bcsc285/2024bcsc285.htmlTue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 GMTincidentcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagementhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagementA practical resource from the Law Society of Alberta, first published January 2024 and updated March 2025, setting out rules of engagement for Canadian lawyers using generative AI. It is permissive with cautions: verify everything, protect confidentiality and privilege, understand the tool, comply with court disclosure directions, and keep the lawyer accountable for the work. Primary source: Law Society of Alberta — Original — https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-centre/key-resources/professional-conduct/gen-ai-rules-of-engagement-for-canadian-lawyers/Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-ai-noticehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/canada-federal-court-ai-noticeThe Federal Court of Canada's notice, first issued 20 December 2023 and updated 7 May 2024, requires parties and counsel to declare in the first paragraph of any document containing AI-generated content that AI was used to prepare it, and to verify that content. It was among the first mandatory disclosure rules for court filings in a common-law jurisdiction. Primary source: Federal Court of Canada — Original — https://www.fct-cf.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2023-12-20-notice-use-of-ai-in-court-proceedings.pdfWed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-aiGuidance from the Law Society of British Columbia, issued November 2023, on how the Code of Professional Conduct applies when BC lawyers use generative AI. It is permissive with cautions, stressing that lawyers must verify output, keep client information confidential, remain competent in the technology, and understand that AI does not change their professional obligations. Primary source: LSBC — November 2023 — https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/getContentAsset/91264ae3-9fa0-4063-88fb-69977a293f62/dfc3d011-8f63-43f6-9ed8-4b444333a1d0/Professional-responsibility-and-AI.pdf?language=en-CAWed, 01 Nov 2023 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-ab-tri-court-llm-noticehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/ca-ab-tri-court-llm-noticeA joint notice issued on 6 October 2023 by all three Alberta courts. It urges caution when referencing legal authorities or analysis derived from large language models, requires reliance exclusively on authoritative sources such as official court sites, established commercial publishers or CanLII, and requires meaningful human control over AI-assisted submissions. Primary source: Alberta Courts — Original — https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/npp/tri-court-notice-to-profession-and-public---large-language-models.pdf?sfvrsn=713d5a82_7Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/yukon-sc-general-29-use-of-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/yukon-sc-general-29-use-of-aiPractice Direction GENERAL-29, issued by the Supreme Court of Yukon on 26 June 2023, requires any party relying on artificial intelligence for legal research or submissions to advise the court of the tool used and how it was used. It followed the Manitoba direction by three days and applies to lawyers and self-represented litigants. Primary source: Supreme Court of Yukon — Original — https://www.yukoncourts.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/GENERAL-29%20Use%20of%20AI.pdfMon, 26 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanadahttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/manitoba-kb-ai-court-submissions-practice-directionhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/canada/manitoba-kb-ai-court-submissions-practice-directionA practice direction issued 23 June 2023 by the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba, one of the first court rules on AI anywhere. When artificial intelligence has been used in the preparation of materials filed with the court, the materials must indicate how AI was used. The direction applies to lawyers and self-represented parties alike. Primary source: Manitoba King's Bench — Original — https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/site/assets/files/2045/practice_direction_-_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_court_submissions.pdfFri, 23 Jun 2023 00:00:00 GMTregulationcanada