Quebec courts have asserted that generative artificial intelligence is not a replacement for the reasoning performed by judges, and they highlighted the absence of any approved, secure institutional AI tool that could be used by the bench. The statement from court officials came after a Quebec judge was alleged to have consulted generative AI while drafting a decision, prompting questions about the role of such technology in the judicial process.
Officials emphasized that the legal system relies on human analysis, interpretation of law and facts, and the nuanced judgment that only a trained jurist can provide. They noted that, to date, no AI system meets the security and reliability standards required for official use in court proceedings, and that no sanctioned platform has been made available to judges for drafting or researching opinions.
The remarks follow months of scrutiny after reports surfaced that a judge may have used AI to assist in preparing a ruling. In response, the Quebec judiciary issued guidelines aimed at clarifying acceptable practices and preventing reliance on unvetted digital tools. Those guidelines stress that any technological aid must be transparent, auditable and subject to strict oversight, and they reiterate that ultimate decision‑making authority remains with the human judge.
By underscoring the current limitations of AI in the courtroom, the courts aim to preserve the integrity of judicial outcomes and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The position also serves as a warning to other jurisdictions that, while AI can offer valuable research assistance, it cannot substitute for the core reasoning that underpins judicial decisions.