OTTAWA – Artificial intelligence is proving to be both promising and problematic for Canadian courtrooms, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said Tuesday.
Distinguishing fact from fiction has become more difficult — and more important — in a time when information can be generated and shared rapidly, Wagner said at his annual news conference.
Society is grappling with the emergence of machine learning and online tools that can process a wide range of data almost instantly, with varying degrees of accuracy.
Dozens of AI-generated hallucinations, such as fake case citations, have turned up in Canadian legal proceedings.
“Just a few years ago, hallucinated legal cases were not something we imagined,” Wagner said Tuesday. “Today they are a part of our reality.”
Wagner said that while new technologies offer opportunities to improve access and efficiency, they also require courts to adapt quickly and thoughtfully.
That adaptation requires money and time — investments that are necessary to maintain public trust in the justice system, he said.
“We have to, I think, be mindful of the advantages, but also of the damages and problems that could arise from the use of AI,” he said.
Wagner said the risk is increasing because people in the court system who do not have a lawyer and lack legal expertise may turn to AI to produce court filings.
He noted the Supreme Court is well-staffed with lawyers and clerks and “we read everything.”
“Chances that we’ll have fake cases submitted to us is very low, very low,” Wagner said. “I think the risk is higher at the trial court level and the appeal court level.”
Wagner said law societies have a responsibility to make sure lawyers file verifiable information in the courts.
The Canadian Judicial Council has issued guidelines on the use of AI in Canadian courts. They are aimed at providing Canadian judges with a principled framework for understanding the extent to which AI tools can be used appropriately to support or enhance a judge’s role.
Wagner said AI might be used to summarize documents, but not to come up with a ruling.
“It should never be used in the analysis of the facts and the law with a view to obtain a judgment,” he said. It will always be “the judge who will do that work.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2026.
