Scott Riddle, University of Alberta Law Student
January 9, 2025
With artificial intelligence (AI) seemingly entrenching itself into the ethos of society and with more advancements on the inevitable horizon, it is time for the justice system to be proactive in its approach to such powerful technology. By working to develop or integrate Canadian justice with an AI tool, courts could address delays to justice, help self-represented litigants understand Canadian legal standards, recommend alternatives to court, and possibly be used to adjudicate certain legal matters.
AI and the legal system have already begun to intertwine within numerous areas, including policing and legal education.[1] Turning a blind eye to potential advances in AI is a disservice to Canadians seeking justice. Advances in technology are being used in Ontario to improve document collection and organization[2], and has technology been identified as a way to improve court efficiency moving forward.[3] Quebec has recognized the need to “modernize the overburdened and antiquated legal system”[4] through technological advances, but Canada can dream bigger to address such concerns.
There is no doubt that Canadian civil and criminal courts are overwhelmed with cases and that something needs to be done to address this delay.[5] The Advocates’ Society put out a call to action two years ago for Canadian courts to reduce courtroom delays.[6] R v Jordan set time limits for criminal cases to be heard within as an attempt to reduce long delays in criminal trials.[7] However, the attempts of Jordan to speed up the courts has been met with mixed reception, with some saying it has had a negative impact on access to justice.[8] Such attempts are further demonstrated through new Alberta family law practices designed to encourage settlement and reduce courtroom congestion.[9] Canada has clearly recognized the need to improve efficiency and reduce delay in the courtroom.
These changes are reactive solutions, responding to identifiable issues within the justice system. Canada has the chance to be proactive in its policy development and use AI to reduce court congestion. AI will continue to grow at an exponential rate, at least for the near future.[10] The power of AI to assist in simple legal tasks was evident even nine years ago (nearly an eternity when it comes to technology) where similar technology was successfully used to overturn 160,000 parking tickets in London and New York.[11] Canada has the opportunity to embrace technology in an effort to improve access to justice for Canadians disenfranchised due to long delays in the Canadian legal system. It is theorized that courts “relying primarily on online portals and advanced software systems…would increase the efficiency of court administration tenfold”.[12] With current civil litigation timelines requiring a plan to get to trial within 36[13] months in Alberta, could this delay be reduced by AI?
AI could be a pre-trial tool, something especially useful for self-represented litigants. AI could summarize legal standards or tests that must be met in order for a claim to be brought. AI could simply explain negligence, summarize the child support guidelines, or help create a checklist of all that must be done to begin an action. This would help self-represented litigants understand how an action is brought in front of court, the standards that need to be met, and, perhaps most importantly, identify appropriate alternatives to trial. Self-represented litigants are no doubt using AI to help draft pleadings and come up with legal arguments.[14] The Canadian legal system has the chance to wield similar power, designed with Canadian law in mind.
Additionally, this new technology could be trained to be as neutral as possible. This new technology could be trained on Canadian jurisprudence and legislation and be asked to focus on the analysis of qualitative elements of a case provided by a potential litigant. If this tool is an attempt at reducing delays in the legal system, an objective, plain language AI would meet the needs of many potential litigants.
Potentially, the AI could help plaintiffs understand their chances of success at trial and encourage settlement. This is a challenging and daunting task, and possibly an ethical dilemma that technology should not approach. An AI assistant may instill false hope within hopeless litigants, or worse, discourage plaintiffs from bringing rightful actions. The technological challenges of a system that helps direct litigants to trial-alternative resolutions may be out of reach for now, as it could require the AI to estimate chances of success on complex facts. However, the benefits of technology that could reach such a high bar would be significant, greatly reducing the number of litigants desiring courtroom access through settlement incentivization.
It is important to recognize that AI brings significant concerns in its application to the justice system. Improper use of AI, a lack of disclosure of AI, and AI hallucinations are already being encountered across Canada.[15] An AI advising litigants could generate “ghost cases” to rely on, giving the litigant false information that might be presented to a judge or arbiter. Additionally, the AI would be unlikely to be able to make findings of fact, partially due to the asymmetric and biased knowledge that it would obtain in advisory role for a single litigant, but also due to the complexities of human behavior that a judge encounters during trial. An AI system used to advise clients of odds of success or one that recommends settlement would be informed based on half the story and may incorrectly recommend courses of action.
Possibly concerning is the dystopian vision of a legal system run without a human in the loop that feels like something out of a young adult novel. However, this practice already exists in China for specific offenses.[16] In the United States, an online system is used to recommend criminal sentences for offenders.[17] Clearly, the technology for advanced AI use in the resolution of trials and recommendations of judgments is on the horizon, but it may be too large of a cultural hurdle for Canadians, both within and outside of the bar association, to overcome. Using AI as an assistive technology feels appropriate, keeping a human in the loop.[18] Technology should be used to “augment human intelligence, not replace it” [19], especially in legal settings. The use of AI in the legal system requires “vigilance and critical assessment” [20], and by placing itself in charge of the AI development, Canada could shape the technology to fit our needs.
Any such technology would need to be regularly updated with advancements in the law and as legislation is updated. It would need to be trained to understand how the law differs across provinces, so as to properly advise litigants that the results of an action may differ depending on the jurisdiction where justice is being sought. The development of any AI is already daunting, only made worse when considering the potential issues identified. However, when determining if this is a worthwhile project to pursue, Canada should consider how our justice system currently inflicts costs on those searching for justice.
A tool of this sort would be accessible from the court’s website as an aid or an assistant to those who want to understand how to start an action and what the applicable law is. This makes the law more accessible to the public and can help direct participants towards settlement options, if applicable. However, critiques from multiple groups towards such an AI assistant will likely arise. First, lawyers may see this as an intrusion into their profession. An AI assistant that aids people in understanding the law could reduce the need to seek the help of lawyers. In response to such a concern, it should be highlighted that lawyers are not gatekeepers for those seeking justice. Instead, the justice system, and by extension, the legal profession, exists to meet the needs of the public, not to meet the needs of the lawyers. Any tool implemented to aid the public in navigating the legal landscape help meet a mutual goal of both lawyers and the public: the pursuit of justice. Second, there are growing concerns about the environmental impacts of AI creation and use.[21] However, there is dispute about the degree of environmental impact stemming from AI.[22] Additionally, a focused tool potentially reduces the AI use by litigants. An AI assistant trained in Canadian law could more accurately assist potential litigants, reducing the number of AI queries entered. Regardless of what the actual environmental impacts of AI are, this tool would reduce the number of queries from litigants traversing Canadian law currently using generalist AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to answer specific legal questions.
Canada recognizes that AI is already being used by litigants to participate in court proceedings.[23] Canadian courts have an opportunity to use AI to improve efficiency and reduce delay in the legal system. Such an endeavor will require significant investment and regular maintenance, but something must be done to address the overwhelmed justice system. Canada should take the risk and become early adopters of this technology. If Canada takes control of the AI development in a substantial and meaningful way, the courts can feel secure that the tool has been used properly, in a way that is conducive with Canadian justice. AI’s presence in the legal system is no longer a question of “when”, maybe it’s time for Canada’s legal system to ask, “why not” and take a big swing in an attempt to improve access to justice.
[1] Benjamin Perrin, “Artificial Intelligence & Criminal Justice: Cases and Commentary, 2024 CanLIIDocs 3035” (6 January 2025), online: <https://canlii.ca/t/7njwh> [https://perma.cc/X7VC-UEJ7].
[2] Ontario Superior Court of Justice, “Case Center”, online: <https://www.ciro.ca/rules-and-enforcement/hearings/case-center/case-center-faqs> [https://perma.cc/8R38-5CDS].
[3] Courts Administration Service, “Digital Strategy 2025-2027” (28 May 2025), online: <https://www.cas-satj.gc.ca/en/pages/publications/digital-strategy-2025-2027#tc-7-1> [https://perma.cc/ENC7-D7M9].
[4] CBC News, “Quebec streamlining court system by ditching paper records” (24 April 2018), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-streamlining-court-system-by-ditching-paper-records-1.4633176> [https://perma.cc/X57Y-QFE3].
[5] CBC News, “Canada’s backlogged civil and family courts in ‘crisis,’ according to lawyers group” (10 July 2023) online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/justice-delays-canada-courts-ontario-1.6900147> [https://perma.cc/FD94-A7KP].
[6] The Advocates’ Society, “The Advocates’ Society Calls on Governments, Courts, the Bar and Justice Stakeholders to Take Action to Solve Delay in the Civil and Family Justice System”, online: <https://advocates.ca/TAS/Advocacy/Civil_Justice_Delay/TAS/Advocacy_Pages/Advocacy_Pages/Civil_Justice_Delay.aspx?hkey=65c65ef7-569b-49cb-a18c-3239fe00db4c> [https://perma.cc/B5GG-556K].
[7] R v Jordan, [2016] 1 SCR 631 at para 20.
[8] Darryl Greer, “Time limits for trials were meant to speed up justice. They’ve also halted hundreds of criminal cases” (10 November 2024), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-jordan-ruling-justice-system-delays-1.7378300> [https://perma.cc/CW56-LZ7K].
[9] Laws & Beyond, “Major Changes to Family Law in Alberta: What Calgary Families Need to Know About the New Court Process Starting January 2026” (1 December 2025), online: <https://lawsnbeyond.com/blogs/f/calgary-family-law-changes/> [https://perma.cc/PZL7-TNE4].
[10] Metr, “Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks” (19 March 2025), online: <https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/> [https://perma.cc/6Y5M-L75V].
[11] Samuel Gibbs, “Chatbot lawyer overturns 160,000 parking tickets in London and New York”
(28 June 2016), online: <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking-tickets-london-new-york> [https://perma.cc/3H4Y-KQTX].
[12] Darby Heino, “The City of Toronto and Province of Ontario’s COVID-19 Regulations: Inefficient Use of Technology and Overburdened Courts” (2022) RegQuest: 15-07-01 Thomson Reuters Canada.
[13] Field Law, “New Mandatory Trial Timelines in Alberta”, online: <https://www.fieldlaw.com/insights/publication/new-mandatory-trial-timelines-in-alberta> [https://perma.cc/QTZ9-H6AM].
[14] Perrin, supra note 1.
[15] Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322 (CanLII); Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285; Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965.
[16] Tara Vasdani, “Robot justice: China’s use of Internet courts”, online: <https://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/ihc/2020-02/robot-justice-chinas-use-of-internet-courts.page> [https://perma.cc/N8GX-6MA2].
[17] Ibid.
[18] Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, “Notice to the profession and public – ensuring the integrity of court submissions when using large language models” (6 October 2023), online: <https://albertacourts.ca/kb/resources/announcements/notice-to-the-profession-public—use-of-ai-in-citations-submissions> [https://perma.cc/F2UV-N4PW].
[19] David Lundgren, “Technology Is Changing, and So Should Our Approach to the Self-Representation Problem: Artificial Intelligence for SRLs” (14 June 2023), online: <https://www.slaw.ca/2023/06/14/technology-is-changing-and-so-should-our-approach-to-the-self-representation-problem-artificial-intelligence-for-srls/> [https://perma.cc/SU6X-T342].
[20] Miller Thomson, “Artificial intelligence in legal limbo: Alberta’s courts are the latest to provide guidance over the use of generative AI in legal submissions” (24 October 2023), online: <https://www.millerthomson.com/en/insights/commercial-litigation/artificial-intelligence-albertas-guidance-generative-ai-legal-submissions/#_ftnref3> [https://perma.cc/MF6D-9RC8].
[21] Morrison, Jacob, et al., “Holistically Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Creating Language Models” 2025, https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2503.05804; Johnathon Monpetit and Yvette Brand, “AI-related data centres use vast amounts of water. But gauging how much is a murky business” (22 October 2024), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/ai-data-centre-canada-water-use-9.6939684> [https://perma.cc/2E4Z-Y9BY].
[22] Andy Masley, “The AI water issue is fake” (11 October 2025), online: <https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake> [https://perma.cc/2JZA-EJX4].
[23] Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, “USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY COURT USERS TO HELP THEM PARTICIPATE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS” (20 November 2024), online: <https://fja-cmf.gc.ca/COVID-19/Use-of-AI-by-Court-Users-Utilisation-de-lIA-par-les-usagers-des-tribunaux-eng.html> [https://perma.cc/5Y4Z-KNKN].