Responsible AI in Court: Our Ontario Personal Injury Practice in the Era of New Guidelines

November 24, 2025, Kitchener, Ontario

Posted by: Robert Deutschmann, Personal Injury Lawyer

At Deutschmann De Koning Law, we have been closely reviewing Ontario’s new AI practice directions and what they mean for civil litigation, especially in personal injury cases. These directions apply to both civil and family matters and are designed to promote transparency, accuracy, and accountability in the use of AI in court proceedings. Our takeaway: AI itself isn’t outlawed, but its use must be responsible, verifiable, and aligned with established professional and procedural rules.

What this means in plain terms

The core message is clear: everyone involved in a case—counsel and litigants alike—must take careful, ongoing steps to guarantee accuracy when using AI, and the courts will not tolerate carelessness. A recurring risk is “hallucinations”—AI-generated authorities that don’t exist or mischaracterize case law and quotations. The directions insist on proactive oversight to prevent these errors from undermining the integrity of the process.

If you’re a client or a fellow practitioner, you should know these guardrails shape how we prepare materials for court, how we argue a case, and how we present authorities. The directions do not ban AI; instead, they demand that AI-assisted work be verified, authenticated, and compliant with professional duties and procedural rules.

Key duties we embrace as counsel and litigants

• Verify authority and citations with authoritative sources: AI can generate references, but we must check them against trusted sources to avoid incorrect or fictitious authorities.
• Align with professional conduct obligations: Our use of AI must comply with the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The LSO Futures Committee’s White Paper on generative AI provides guidance for applying those rules when AI assists legal services.
• Follow civil procedure rules when preparing factums: Each citation must include a reference to the relevant paragraph, provision, or page. A signed certification from the lawyer (or someone authorized by the lawyer) attesting to the authenticity of every authority cited is required.
• Authenticity presumption for public sources: Authorities published on government sites, CanLII, court websites, or by government publishers are presumed authentic unless proven otherwise.
• Expert verification: Experts must verify the authenticity of authorities or documents discussed in their reports.
• Hyperlinking and accessibility: Factums, compendiums, and authorities must hyperlink to publicly accessible sources (e.g., CanLII) whenever available, with case references also hyperlinked to the pertinent paragraph or page.
• Structure of compendiums: Include only materials you will rely on in argument, with a hyperlinked table of contents and linked authorities. For sources not freely available, use an abbreviated book of authorities filed electronically.
• Handling non-free authorities: If authorities aren’t freely accessible (e.g., unreported decisions or private databases), include them in an abbreviated book of authorities with navigable internal hyperlinks.
• Potential sanctions for misuse: The court can respond with public reprimand, cost orders, adjournment or dismissal, contempt proceedings, or referrals to the Law Society of Ontario, depending on the facts and circumstances.

Impact on civil litigation, with a focus on personal injury

In civil personal injury disputes, these directions mean we must be especially vigilant about the sources we rely on and the way we present them. Any AI-assisted research or drafting involving authorities must be verifiable and properly cited. The emphasis on authenticating authorities, acknowledging the possibility of AI generating non-existent authorities, and hyperlinking to accessible sources will influence how we draft factums, prepare compendiums, and organize authorities for court.

Including a paragraph reference for each authority, plus a certification of authenticity, adds a layer of accountability for both the drafting lawyer and the client. This scrutiny helps ensure that our legal arguments are supported by verifiable law, which is crucial in personal injury matters where issues of liability, damages, and procedural fairness can hinge on precise citations and authoritative sources.

Practical steps we’re putting in place at Deutschmann De Koning Law

• Verification checklist for AI-assisted tasks: before submitting any AI-assisted material, we verify every authority against official sources and document the verification process.
• Primary use of CanLII and official sources: we prioritize free, publicly accessible sources and ensure hyperlinks are to CanLII or equivalent official sites, with paragraph references for every cited case.
• Signed authenticity statements for each authority: we require the lawyer’s signature (or an authorized signer) attesting to the authenticity of each cited authority.
• Careful compendium construction: we include only materials we will rely on, with a hyperlinked table of contents and linked authorities; non-free sources go into an abbreviated book of authorities filed electronically.
• Ongoing engagement with professional conduct guidance: we regularly review the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the LSO Futures Committee White Paper to keep our AI practices compliant.
• Preparedness for sanctions: we recognize that improper AI use—especially relying on non-authentic authorities—could trigger serious consequences, so we implement safeguards now.

In short

The new AI practice directions aren’t a prohibition on using AI in civil litigation; they establish a robust framework to safeguard the integrity of the process. For personal injury work, the message is concrete: if we rely on AI, we must verify and authenticate every authority, cite correctly with precise references, hyperlink to public sources, and be prepared to justify every authority we present in court. The consequences for dishonesty or carelessness can be severe, so implementing these checks now is prudent for our clients and our practice.

If you’re a client or colleague who wants to understand how we’re applying these guidelines to real cases, we’re happy to discuss how we’re integrating these standards into our day-to-day practice and how they benefit your civil litigation strategy.

About Deutschmann de Koning Law

Deutschmann de Koning Law serves South-Western Ontario with offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brantford, Stratford and Ayr. The law practice of Robert Deutschmann and Nick de Koning focuses almost exclusively in personal injury and disability insurance matters. For more information, please visit www.ddinjurylaw.com or call us at 1-519-742-7774.