Practice Directives

Purpose

The Board acknowledges the rapid development in and increasingly common use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology and its role in Board processes.

To maintain access to justice and the integrity of Board proceedings, this policy sets out the Board’s expectations regarding the use of AI. All parties who intend to use AI should review and comply with this Practice Directive.

What is AI for Board purposes

In Board processes, generative AI refers to any technology that works by responding to human instructions to do tasks such as creating images or stories, communicating, learning or solving problems.

Examples of this technology include Protégé, CoCounsel, Large Language Models (Chat GPT, Co-pilot) and language translating or writing applications.

Challenges

The Board has concerns about some of the challenges with the use of generative AI technology, including:

• Missing important details – AI can miss key details leading to incorrect information. Providing incorrect information in material filed with the Board discredits your submissions.
• Copying/ Plagiarism – AI can outright copy or plagiarize information from published texts without citing the sources which can violate copyright law.
• Hallucinations – AI can invent non-existent cases, statutes, and other legal sources. Submitting such misinformation as case law will discredit your submissions.
• Privacy Risks – confidential or personal information entered in AI platforms may not be secure.

Professional Conduct

AI compiles examples based on the prompts it is given. However, filings with the Board are based on unique events and situations. Submissions must reflect the unique facts and arguments that have arisen in the circumstances. Parties must ensure that they are not using AI to create witness statements, affidavits or other documents that they intend to rely upon as evidence. It is critical that these be based on a person’s own knowledge and experience.

Mandatory Disclosure

Should a party choose to use AI in any way when drafting submissions, they must:

• Tell the Board and all parties that AI was used in the first paragraph of their submissions
• Identify exact sections of the document, paragraph and page number(s) where the tool was used

Accountability

A party is accountable for their submissions. AI does not replace human judgement. If AI was used, the accountable party must review all generated material to ensure it is factual, accurate, complete and up to date.

Verification of Information

Where reference is made to legal authorities, parties must provide a full citation with hyperlinks to the source of the file being referred to. Where it is not possible to provide a hyperlink, a physical copy of the case must be submitted. Parties are encouraged to rely on reputable and reliable sources, such as Board Decisions or CanLii, to ensure the accuracy of the cited caselaw.

Board Discretion

Where submissions contain evidence of undisclosed use of generative AI or reflect a deliberate effort to mislead the Board through the inclusion of fabricated or non-existent legal authorities, the Board reserves the right to take any one or more of the following actions:

• reject all or part of the submissions;
• dismiss the application; and
• take any other action the Board considers appropriate in the circumstances.