Six AI Checks Before Filing in Quebec
Quebec’s new judicial guidelines offer an occasion to examine how AI assistance enters a litigation file, without confusing judicial guidance with lawyers’ duties.
By Pouya Shafabakhsh
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada (LexisNexis Canada Inc.) on September 23, 2026. Read the original article on Law360 Canada.
A Quebec litigation team receives an English summary of French correspondence shortly before filing. The prose reads well. Yet a witness’s uncertainty has become a firm denial, and a qualification has disappeared. Who compares the summary with the original before counsel relies on it?
This hypothetical illustrates a problem that a spelling check cannot solve. When generative AI translates or summarizes a record, the supervising lawyer needs to know what changed between the source and the version prepared for court.
On September 4, 2026, Quebec’s Court of Appeal, Superior Court, Court of Québec and municipal courts announced guidelines for judges’ use of generative AI. Dated August 31, the guidelines preserve judicial decision-making as a human responsibility. They distinguish limited descriptive assistance from evaluating credibility, deciding relevance and formulating judicial reasons.
These are guidelines for judges, not a new filing code for lawyers. Their accompanying self-assessment grid is optional and without normative value. Neither document should be repurposed into a universal certification requirement for counsel.
For firms, the useful response is an operational review of their own work. The Barreau du Québec separately provides guidance addressing competence, confidentiality, supervision and other professional obligations. Against that background, six checks can help translate a firm’s AI policy into a workable review process. They are governance recommendations, not additional procedural requirements.
Record the task and reviewer
“AI assisted” tells a reviewer little. “Translated French correspondence, extracted payment dates and suggested a chronology” identifies three review assignments.
This record can include work supplied by clients, experts and outside providers, with questions proportionate to its significance. A client’s polished summary may need the same source comparison as an internally generated one. For each material use, an entry can identify the operator, reviewer, tool, source collection and output.
Check what the summary leaves out
In a delivery dispute, for example, a chronology of missed deadlines could omit agreed extensions. A useful test would compare it against correspondence concerning extensions, disputed instructions and revised schedules. The reviewer would examine whether the extraction request was too narrow and whether attachments were included.
This is an omission check. It serves a different purpose from confirming that each listed date appears somewhere in the record. Teams can identify categories likely to alter the narrative and test those deliberately. Any sampling approach belongs in the review record with its limitations; a sample cannot establish that every relevant document was captured.
Compare both language versions
A fluent translation can conceal a changed qualification. In a hypothetical witness account, “I do not recall approving it” is materially different from “I did not approve it.” A reviewer concentrating on grammar could miss that shift.
For material passages, keeping the original and translation together makes comparison easier. A reviewer competent in both languages can check uncertainty, chronology, attribution and legal terminology. The reviewer can record changes that affect meaning and expressions that remain unclear. Where wording matters to the dispute, counsel can determine whether further translation expertise is warranted before relying on the passage.
Read the authority behind each claim
Finding a real judgment is only the beginning. A working authority table can connect each material proposition to its supporting paragraph, court, date and subsequent treatment. It can also identify whether the proposition concerns Quebec civil law, federal law or another jurisdiction.
The reviewing lawyer then has a way to assess applicability rather than merely existence. Similar vocabulary does not establish that two jurisdictions use the same legal test. For legislation, the relevant version and commencement information belong beside the provision. A completed check should mean the source supports the proposition advanced.
Review data before uploading
The Commission d’accès à l’information’s guidance on generative AI emphasizes lawful handling of personal information and privacy safeguards. Operationally, review begins before a document enters a tool.
A firm can record the account used, approved data categories, retention settings, provider access and any uncertainty about reuse. Confidentiality, professional secrecy, personal information and restrictions attached to particular documents merit separate consideration. Removing names alone may leave identifying details. A provider’s security claim does not settle whether a particular upload is appropriate. Unresolved questions can be referred to the responsible lawyer and privacy lead before processing proceeds.
Check the version that will be filed
The final checkpoint can be brief: which material outputs were used, who checked them, what changed and what remains unresolved? Supporting records can be retained within controlled access arrangements appropriate to the matter. Counsel determines preservation, privilege and disclosure questions; an internal review note does not resolve them automatically.
The record is most useful when it identifies the version actually reviewed. A later revision can introduce changes after approval. Assigning responsibility for checking those changes closes a practical gap between an approved draft and the document ultimately filed.
For managing partners, implementation can start with one live matter and a review meeting before filing. Track the time spent checking, correcting and repeating work alongside drafting time saved. That comparison helps the firm decide which tasks justify continued use and which need a different review process.
Before the next filing, name the person who will compare the final document with the approved draft. Give that reviewer access to the original passages, corrections and open questions. A review process works only if someone has time to resolve those questions before the document leaves the firm.
Pouya Shafabakhsh is an IAPP Certified AI Governance Professional (AIGP) and Principal Judicial Forensic AI Auditor at Radsam Academy of AI. He is also the Author of North American Litigation AI GRC Methodologies. His work focuses on litigation AI governance, auditability, and defensibility. He is not a lawyer. This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a statement that any control described here is required in every matter.
Author: Pouya Shafabakhsh Co-Founder, CAIO & Principal Forensic AI Auditor, Radsam Academy of AI Sovereign Governance. Independent AI governance and forensic-audit analysis. Educational information only; not legal advice.
Would you be opposed to finding your firm's AI gaps before opposing counsel or insurance companies do? I invite you to assess your firm using our AI Risks Calculator. Safely, securely, privately, and confidentially—with no need to enter any information, not even your email address—you can get a comprehensive AI Risks and Liabilities report in just five minutes.
If you have a sensitive file and want to protect it against AI hallucinations, bias, algorithmic discrimination, and AI-assisted risks through an Air-Gapped Shadow AI Audit before court, or if you are involved in a legal dispute related to AI and need a Judicial Forensic AI Audit, at Radsam, we are willing to assist you whether through our human-based services or by providing our in-house solution, the Sovereign Sanctuary Vault. In these cases, I invite you to fill out our Pre-Qualifying Assessment Form. We will review your information, qualifications, and capacity, and will contact you within two business days.
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada (LexisNexis Canada Inc.) on September 23, 2026. Read the original article on Law360 Canada.
Comments