{"resourceId":"canadian-judicial-council-ai-guidelines-second-edition-impermissible-uses-20261020","versions":[{"version":"external-9f8d461cee7c14f1278f3c53a7ddc3e6c823f7177fbf86f41effb5e6a821775c","resource":{"id":"canadian-judicial-council-ai-guidelines-second-edition-impermissible-uses-20261020","title":"Canadian Judicial Council’s second-edition AI guidelines list uses judges must not delegate to AI, bar court documents in non-court tools, and treat AI transcripts as personal notes","organization":"Canadian Judicial Council","sector":"Courts / judicial AI guidance","geography":"Canada","publishedAt":"October 20, 2026 (Canadian Judicial Council)","publicationDate":"2026-10-20","eventDate":"2026-10-20","sourceName":"Canadian Judicial Council","sourceLabel":"Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (Second Edition, 2026)","sourceUrl":"https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2026/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI%20in%20Canadian%20Courts%20%28Second%20Edition%2C%202026%29_Final.pdf","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","knowledge-work"],"finding":"The second edition replaces the 2024 guidelines and sorts judicial AI uses into permissible, high-risk borderline and inappropriate. Inappropriate uses include entering court documents into non-court tools (naming ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, NotebookLM and others), assessing credibility, resolving disputed facts or law, exercising discretion, and deciding guilt, liability or sentence. Borderline uses include identifying legal tests and sentence ranges. AI transcripts of proceedings should be treated as personal notes, not official records. Individual judicial use does not ordinarily require disclosure, but courts should explain how deployed systems are evaluated and governed. Court administration AI requires judicial oversight even on government platforms.","sledRelevance":"One of the most specific judicial AI use taxonomies published to date, naming consumer tools and separating individual judge use from court administration systems. U.S. state courts drafting AI policies can compare its borderline category, such as sentence ranges, with their own rules.","evidence":"Opened the CJC news release (Oct. 20) and the full guidelines PDF; read the transparency, court administration, sensitive information, permissible, borderline and inappropriate use sections and transcription guidance.","architectureImplications":"Court-approved AI systems should be used for non-public information; government-wide shared platforms do not by themselves resolve independence or confidentiality questions.","governanceImplications":"Judicial leadership over procurement, configuration and deployment of court administration AI; institutional transparency about deployed systems.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Lists sensitive categories (draft reasons, sealed records, privileged material, publication bans) to keep out of AI systems; concerns about training on judicial information.","caveats":"Guidance, not binding rules; examples may migrate between categories as models change (per the document); no compliance measurement.","streamIds":["public-safety"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: Canada’s judicial council has drawn a clear line between AI tasks judges may use, should treat with caution, and must not delegate, and has named consumer tools as off limits for court documents. Courts that adopt similar rules need approved, court-controlled tools. A bounded engagement is mapping a court’s AI uses against such categories. This source cannot support claims that compliant tools exist off the shelf or that guidance reduces errors.","engineering":"Engineering framing: the guidelines push courts toward court-controlled environments for any non-public information and treat shared government platforms with caution. Pre-sales should check where court data would be hosted, whether it could be used for training, and whether transcription outputs are kept separate from the official record. Proof should confirm data isolation and logging for a court-approved tool.","delivery":"Delivery framing: the work is classifying a court’s current and planned AI uses into permitted, borderline and prohibited, and setting controls for each. Dependencies are judicial leadership sign-off and IT inventory. The owner is the court’s chief justice office with court administration. Acceptance should include a published description of deployed systems and training completion for judges and staff."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Courts need approved AI tools and clear rules as judges face pressure to use consumer AI.","stakeholders":["Chief justices","Court administrators","Court IT","Judicial education bodies"],"discoveryQuestions":["Which AI tools are judges using today?","Is there a court-approved environment?","How are AI transcripts kept apart from the record?","Who approves court administration AI?"],"valueHypothesis":"Mapping uses to clear categories lets a court approve low-risk assistance while blocking prohibited uses.","potentialEngagement":"AI use classification and policy alignment review for one court system.","unsupportedClaims":["That the guidelines are binding","That compliance reduces hallucinations","That any product is endorsed"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Courts deploying AI for summarisation, research or transcription.","architectureIntegration":"Court-controlled AI environment separated from shared government platforms where independence requires.","prerequisites":["Data classification of court records","Approved tool list","Logging"],"constraints":["Canadian context","Shared government platforms","Sealed and publication-ban data"],"security":"Prevent training on judicial data and keep sensitive categories out of external services.","proofOfValue":["Proposed: verify no court data leaves approved environment","Proposed: confirm AI transcripts are labelled non-official"]},"delivery":{"work":"Classify AI uses, set controls per category, train judges and staff, and publish system descriptions.","dependencies":["Judicial sign-off","IT inventory","Training capacity"],"ownership":"Chief justice office with court administration","skillsAdoption":"Judicial training on verification and confidentiality.","governanceCheckpoints":["Judicial approval for each court administration AI system","Periodic review of category examples"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: all deployed AI systems publicly described","Proposed: training completed by judges and staff"],"risks":["Shadow use of consumer tools","Category drift as models change","Vendor training on court data"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-22T02:52:02Z","enrichedAt":"2026-10-22T02:56:39Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Calls for training of judges and court staff on prompting, verification, confidentiality and security.","procurementImplications":"Contractual confidentiality assurances do not relieve judges of responsibility; data sovereignty should inform tool selection.","operatingModelImplications":"Separates individual judicial use from institutional court administration systems with different governance.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2026/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI%20in%20Canadian%20Courts%20%28Second%20Edition%2C%202026%29_Final.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"Certain functions are so closely connected to the judicial role that they must not be delegated to artificial intelligence.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}