Canada’s courts are seeing a shift in how self-represented parties engage with the legal system, thanks to the growing availability of generative AI tools. GenAI is changing the way litigants prepare court submissions, with many using AI to draft materials for their cases.
Judges say filings are cleaner, more voluminous, and require them to meet a higher verification burden. Superior Court of Quebec Chief Justice Marie-Anne Paquette and Justice Steven Hinkley of the Alberta Court of Justice have observed this trend firsthand.
Self-representation can be daunting, with litigants expected to follow the same rules and procedures as lawyers without the benefit of formal training or experience. However, self-representation is not a new phenomenon, and the number of self-represented litigants in Canada has been increasing over the past two decades.
In 2016, the federal government noted this trend, citing studies that showed it had been climbing for the previous 20 years. More recently, Statistics Canada reported that in 65 percent of family law cases active in 2024 and 2025, at least one party was self-represented at some point during the case.
The growing availability of genAI tools has changed how self-represented litigants engage with the courts. Filings look different, with improved formatting and organization.
For Hinkley, the improved formatting of many filings has not changed the quality of the actual arguments being made. He notes that the self-represented party he’s seeing has the same command or lack thereof of their cases as they did before.
One of the biggest challenges resulting from these trends is the so-called verification burden – the obligation of the courts to ensure that each case or authority cited by parties is real and accurate.
This work existed before, but the risk profile has changed, and a fabricated quote is more insidious than a weak argument because it looks legitimate. Court staff also faces documents that are more voluminous and superficially well-formed, making the initial triage more demanding.
Related: Life sciences firms face hefty fines over gender data errors
Hinkley agrees, saying that reading submitted materials, particularly from self-represented litigants, used to be one job, but now it’s two. He must not only follow the argument but also verify the cited authorities to ensure they exist and mean what the person advancing them thinks they mean.
A single instance of failing to meet the verification burden can have far-reaching consequences, including a dramatic impact on the public’s trust in the justice system. For this reason, judges and courts are extremely cautious and careful.
While there is currently no way to confirm when a filing has been prepared with AI, several courts require parties to disclose when they’ve prepared materials using AI. However, many litigants have ignored these requirements or failed to accurately report their AI use.
To assist self-represented litigants in handling AI tools, education is key. Paquette says litigants need to understand that a general-purpose chatbot is not a source of law and can invent authorities with complete confidence. Plain language guidance from the courts can go a long way in helping self-represented litigants understand the limitations of AI tools.
Hinkley agrees, noting an encouraging trend of Canadian courts publishing plain language summaries of court decisions or court processes. However, he argues that at the end of the day, what self-represented litigants need most is to know whether or not what they’re advancing and what they believe is correct for the matter they are dealing with.
As the use of genAI tools continues to grow, it’s likely that the courts will need to adapt and find new ways to support self-represented litigants. By providing education and guidance, the courts can help ensure that self-represented litigants are able to effectively handle the law school system and receive a fair hearing.
The issue is complex, and there is no easy solution. However, by understanding the impact of genAI on court filings and the verification burden, the courts can take steps to address these challenges and improve access to justice for all litigants.
