Quebec courts say generative AI cannot replace judges’ reasoning

By: Pierre Saint-Arnaud, The Canadian Press Posted: 2:54 PM CDT Saturday, Sep. 5, 2026

MONTREAL - Quebec's courts have issued new guidelines restricting judges' use of generative artificial intelligence, stressing that judging must remain a fundamentally human responsibility.

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

MONTREAL - Quebec's courts have issued new guidelines restricting judges' use of generative artificial intelligence, stressing that judging must remain a fundamentally human responsibility.

Read unlimited articles for free today:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

MONTREAL – Quebec’s courts have issued new guidelines restricting judges’ use of generative artificial intelligence, stressing that judging must remain a fundamentally human responsibility.

The guidelines, jointly adopted by the Quebec Court of Appeal, Superior Court, Court of Quebec and the province’s municipal courts, say generative AI can be used for certain supporting tasks but cannot replace judicial reasoning, the assessment of evidence or deliberation.

Judging, they say, must remain the exclusive responsibility of judges.

A lawyer runs up the steps of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christinne Muschi

“Generative AI, however sophisticated, possesses neither judgment nor conscience and is not subject to any form of accountability,” states the 10-page document. “It cannot understand the human, social and legal context specific to each case.”

The move comes months after questions were raised about whether a Quebec judge may have used generative AI in preparing a decision.

La Presse reported in March that a decision contained references to case law that did not exist, raising the possibility that generative AI had been used. The episode helped create a sense of urgency within the judiciary as it worked to establish rules for the technology.

The courts say there is currently no approved, secure institutional generative AI tool available to judges. They also warn that existing tools rely on algorithms whose workings remain largely opaque.

“Judging cannot be reduced to a technical exercise,” the guidelines say. “It is an intrinsically human function, based on deliberation, consideration of context, respect for dignity, the requirement of fairness and the exercise of moral responsibility.”

The courts acknowledge that generative AI can be useful, but say it cannot be used as a source of legal authority or reasoning, to assess evidence or to make decisions.

Judges may use it for limited tasks such as correcting, revising, rephrasing or translating text they have already written, certain administrative work, or locating information within specified sources.

Any such use must remain under human control, and AI-generated material must be independently verified.

The guidelines make clear that judges remain fully responsible for their legal reasoning, the contents of their decisions, and the accuracy of the facts, references, quotations and legal authorities they cite.

“No error can be attributed to the tool used,” the document says. “The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the judge’s obligation to verify or their full responsibility for the final result.”

The guidelines say AI cannot be used for substantive legal reasoning, analyzing or characterizing facts, assessing evidence or credibility, determining the outcome of a dispute, or drafting those parts of a decision.

“If the use of AI has the effect or purpose of determining the legal outcome, assessing credibility or interpreting disputed facts, interpreting the relevance of facts, or formulating the reasons for a decision, it must not be used,” the guidelines say.

The courts also warn judges about confidentiality risks.

Judges should not provide AI tools with draft judgments, notes about ongoing cases or information protected by law or a court order.

Until an authorized institutional system is available, judges using an AI tool for permitted purposes must also ensure its settings prevent information they enter from being used to train or improve the system.

When in doubt, the guidelines recommend judges refrain from using generative AI.

The guidelines are intended to protect principles including judicial independence, impartiality, fairness, human rights and access to justice, while ensuring confidentiality, security and data protection.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 5, 2026.