Blab AI
Chief Justice Wagner Urges Caution on AI Use in Canadian Courts
In a speech at his annual news conference in Ottawa on September 6, 2026, Chief Justice Richard Wagner warned that artificial intelligence (AI) is both promising and problematic for Canadian courtrooms. He said the line between fact and fiction is increasingly blurred in an era when information can be generated and shared instantly.
Wagner, who has served as the 18th Chief Justice of Canada since 2017, reiterated a stance he announced in March: judges and judicial‑branch employees may not use AI tools without express approval from the Supreme Court or the court administration. The March directive, according to reports, was issued to prevent the unvetted use of AI in legal research, case analysis, or decision‑making.
The chief justice explained that AI’s speed can help clear case backlogs, a benefit highlighted by research on AI in courtrooms worldwide. The research, cited by the court, notes that AI can process information at speeds no human can match. However, Wagner cautioned that the efficiency comes with a significant risk of bias if the data the system learns from is flawed. "We must guard against the inadvertent introduction of bias into the justice system," he said.
Wagner also addressed the broader cultural context of AI in the judiciary. He welcomed the prospect of greater diversity on courtroom benches, but declined to engage in a wider discussion of systemic racism. "Courts must apply the law," he said, "and it is up to parliamentarians to enact legislation, not to us to do it in our place."
The chief justice’s remarks come amid a growing debate over the role of AI in legal processes. The Supreme Court of Canada, the country’s highest appellate body, has been examining how AI tools might support judges in reviewing evidence, drafting opinions, and managing case loads. The court’s procedural rules, which Wagner oversees as chair of the Canadian Judicial Council, have been updated to include guidelines for the ethical use of technology.
In addition to the March directive, the court has issued a memorandum in 2025 stating that AI systems cannot be named inventors under Canadian patent law, a decision that clarified the legal status of AI‑generated inventions. The ruling, reported by the Patent Appeal Board, reaffirmed that a human must be listed as the inventor on a Canadian patent application.
Wagner’s comments also touch on the practical realities of AI deployment. According to the court’s internal review, many judges have expressed concerns about the reliability of AI‑generated summaries and the potential for errors to influence judicial outcomes. The court’s policy now requires any AI tool used in the courtroom to undergo a formal approval process, including a review of the algorithm’s training data, transparency of its decision‑making process, and safeguards against bias.
The chief justice’s emphasis on the difficulty of distinguishing fact from fiction reflects a broader concern about misinformation. In a world where AI can produce realistic text, images, and audio, the judiciary must maintain rigorous standards for evidence and testimony. The court’s policy now mandates that any AI‑generated content presented as evidence must be accompanied by a disclosure of its source and a verification of its authenticity.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court plans to pilot a small‑scale AI assistance program in 2027, focusing on non‑contentious civil cases. The pilot will evaluate the impact of AI on case management and judge workload, with a view to scaling up if the results demonstrate clear benefits without compromising fairness or transparency.
In summary, Chief Justice Wagner’s speech underscored the dual nature of AI in the Canadian legal system: it offers potential efficiencies but also introduces new risks that must be carefully managed. The court’s current policy requires explicit approval for AI use, and future pilots will assess the technology’s impact on justice delivery. The judiciary remains vigilant that the pursuit of speed does not come at the expense of accuracy, fairness, or the integrity of the legal process.
Wagner, who has served as the 18th Chief Justice of Canada since 2017, reiterated a stance he announced in March: judges and judicial‑branch employees may not use AI tools without express approval from the Supreme Court or the court administration. The March directive, according to reports, was issued to prevent the unvetted use of AI in legal research, case analysis, or decision‑making.
The chief justice explained that AI’s speed can help clear case backlogs, a benefit highlighted by research on AI in courtrooms worldwide. The research, cited by the court, notes that AI can process information at speeds no human can match. However, Wagner cautioned that the efficiency comes with a significant risk of bias if the data the system learns from is flawed. "We must guard against the inadvertent introduction of bias into the justice system," he said.
Wagner also addressed the broader cultural context of AI in the judiciary. He welcomed the prospect of greater diversity on courtroom benches, but declined to engage in a wider discussion of systemic racism. "Courts must apply the law," he said, "and it is up to parliamentarians to enact legislation, not to us to do it in our place."
The chief justice’s remarks come amid a growing debate over the role of AI in legal processes. The Supreme Court of Canada, the country’s highest appellate body, has been examining how AI tools might support judges in reviewing evidence, drafting opinions, and managing case loads. The court’s procedural rules, which Wagner oversees as chair of the Canadian Judicial Council, have been updated to include guidelines for the ethical use of technology.
In addition to the March directive, the court has issued a memorandum in 2025 stating that AI systems cannot be named inventors under Canadian patent law, a decision that clarified the legal status of AI‑generated inventions. The ruling, reported by the Patent Appeal Board, reaffirmed that a human must be listed as the inventor on a Canadian patent application.
Wagner’s comments also touch on the practical realities of AI deployment. According to the court’s internal review, many judges have expressed concerns about the reliability of AI‑generated summaries and the potential for errors to influence judicial outcomes. The court’s policy now requires any AI tool used in the courtroom to undergo a formal approval process, including a review of the algorithm’s training data, transparency of its decision‑making process, and safeguards against bias.
The chief justice’s emphasis on the difficulty of distinguishing fact from fiction reflects a broader concern about misinformation. In a world where AI can produce realistic text, images, and audio, the judiciary must maintain rigorous standards for evidence and testimony. The court’s policy now mandates that any AI‑generated content presented as evidence must be accompanied by a disclosure of its source and a verification of its authenticity.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court plans to pilot a small‑scale AI assistance program in 2027, focusing on non‑contentious civil cases. The pilot will evaluate the impact of AI on case management and judge workload, with a view to scaling up if the results demonstrate clear benefits without compromising fairness or transparency.
In summary, Chief Justice Wagner’s speech underscored the dual nature of AI in the Canadian legal system: it offers potential efficiencies but also introduces new risks that must be carefully managed. The court’s current policy requires explicit approval for AI use, and future pilots will assess the technology’s impact on justice delivery. The judiciary remains vigilant that the pursuit of speed does not come at the expense of accuracy, fairness, or the integrity of the legal process.
