AI is changing how lawyers prepare their work. It also raises a deeper question: how will courts establish what is real?
At the Supreme Court of Canada’s October 5 opening of the judicial year, Chief Justice Richard Wagner identified polarization, the rapid pace of events and artificial intelligence as pressures contributing to uncertainty. Justice Minister Sean Fraser linked AI’s ability to blur truth and fiction with the importance of courts’ truth-seeking function. Canadian Press report
These were ceremonial remarks, not a judgment, practice direction or new AI policy. The Court describes the opening ceremony as an opportunity for the legal community to reflect on issues facing the justice system. Ceremonial opening of the judicial year
Two Related Messages, Distinct Speakers
Wagner’s remarks concerned the resilience of democratic institutions under pressure. Fraser made the more specific connection between AI, distinguishing fact from fiction and the work of Canadian courts. Canadian Press report
That attribution matters. Reporting both messages as a single judicial pronouncement would blur the roles of the Chief Justice and the minister.
Together, the remarks offer a starting point for discussion about the information environment surrounding litigation. They do not prescribe how a judge should decide whether a particular digital exhibit is authentic.
Beyond Hallucinated Citations
Much of the discussion about AI in legal practice focuses on inaccurate research and invented authorities. Those errors affect what lawyers submit about the law.
Synthetic media raises another category of concern: material presented as evidence of an event, conversation or identity.
Consider a hypothetical recording offered as proof of a disputed statement. Questions about its origin, editing history and supporting evidence may become central to evaluating it. Equally, an unsupported allegation that a genuine recording is synthetic can complicate a dispute.
These are practical implications of the broader discussion, rather than findings made at the ceremony.
Provenance Deserves Attention
For litigators, a useful starting point is the history of the material.
Who created or obtained it? Is an original available? What processing occurred before production? Are there independent records or witnesses that support its contents?
The answers may help counsel identify what requires further investigation or expert assistance. They do not supply a universal admissibility test. The governing evidentiary requirements must still be assessed in the particular proceeding.
The practical aim is to develop a sound factual basis for reliance or challenge, rather than treat a convincing appearance - or suspicion of AI - as conclusive.
Public Understanding Matters Too
A court’s finding may be carefully limited while public discussion presents it as a much broader conclusion.
Clear communication can help readers distinguish an allegation, an admitted fact, a disputed exhibit and a judicial finding. It can also explain when a ruling is procedural rather than a determination of truth.
That distinction is particularly valuable when excerpts and summaries circulate apart from the full reasons.
An Institutional Discussion, Not a New Rule
The October 5 ceremony did not change lawyers’ filing obligations or establish a new approach to synthetic evidence.
Its significance is the question it places before the profession: how to preserve confidence in reasoned, evidence-based decisions as the tools for producing persuasive false material improve.
For lawyers, that makes the origin and reliability of information worth examining as carefully as the argument built around it.
Sources: Canadian Press report; Ceremonial opening of the judicial year; Chief Justice’s remarks.
Related coverage: B.C. Court Warns That Poor AI Filings Can Undermine Access to Justice.