Quebec’s judicial system has implemented new guidelines to constrain the usage of generative artificial intelligence by judges, emphasizing the irreplaceable importance of human judgment in legal decision-making.
The regulations, collectively endorsed by various Quebec courts including the Court of Appeal, Superior Court, Court of Quebec, and municipal courts, outline that while generative AI can be utilized for specific supportive tasks, it must not supplant judicial reasoning, evidence evaluation, or deliberation.
The 10-page document explicitly states that “Generative AI, regardless of its complexity, lacks the capacity for judgment or conscience and is not accountable in any way. It is incapable of grasping the unique human, social, and legal context of each case.”
The initiative follows concerns that a Quebec judge might have utilized generative AI in a ruling preparation process, which was highlighted when references to nonexistent case law were found in a decision. This incident prompted an urgent need within the judiciary to establish guidelines for the technology.
The courts underscore that there is currently no approved, secure institutional generative AI tool available to judges, and caution against the opacity of existing tools’ algorithms.
The guidelines emphasize that judicial decision-making is a fundamentally human function that involves deliberation, contextual understanding, respect for dignity, fairness, and moral responsibility. While acknowledging the potential usefulness of generative AI, it cannot serve as a legal authority, assess evidence, or dictate decisions.
Judges are permitted to use generative AI for specific tasks like text correction, revision, rephrasing, translation, administrative duties, or information retrieval from designated sources. However, human supervision is essential, and AI-generated content must undergo independent verification.
The regulations stress that judges bear full responsibility for their legal rationale, decision contents, and the accuracy of references, facts, quotes, and legal precedents cited. Errors cannot be attributed to the AI tool, and its usage does not absolve judges of the obligation to verify facts or the final decision’s integrity.
AI is prohibited from being employed in substantive legal reasoning, fact analysis, evidence evaluation, credibility assessment, dispute resolution determination, or decision justification. Any AI use influencing legal outcomes, credibility assessments, fact interpretations, or decision rationales is prohibited.
Furthermore, judges are cautioned about confidentiality risks associated with AI tools, advising against sharing draft judgments, case notes, or legally protected information.
Until an authorized institutional system is established, judges permitted to use AI tools must ensure that the system’s settings prevent information input from being utilized for training or enhancing the AI.
In cases of uncertainty, the guidelines recommend judges refrain from employing generative AI to maintain the core principles of judicial independence, impartiality, fairness, human rights, and access to justice while upholding security, confidentiality, and data protection.
