This is general information, not legal advice, and reflects Ontario law as of September 24, 2026.
A separate document, not a footnote
Our Small Claims Court breakdown already flagged this in passing: the Superior Court of Justice's general Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction names Divisional Court and Small Claims Court as its two exceptions. That line is easy to misread as "neither has an AI rule." Only one of them doesn't. Small Claims runs on its own simplified rules with no comparable AI-specific document. Divisional Court is the opposite: it's excluded from the general civil direction because it already has its own — the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings — carrying the same Part J(12) framework as the Superior Court's civil, family, and criminal directions.
What Part J(12) actually requires
Paragraphs 153 through 158 spell it out: AI-generated legal information must be verified against a trusted, authoritative source before it reaches a filing, because — in the direction's own words — unverified reliance on AI "commonly" produces fictitious authorities.
AI-generated references may include incorrect or fictitious legal authorities. All legal information obtained using the assistance of AI must be verified against trusted and authoritative sources.Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings, Part J(12), last updated June 8, 2026
Paragraph 156 gives that duty teeth: a factum must include a statement, signed by the filing lawyer, certifying they're satisfied every authority cited in it is authentic. That's not a suggestion — it's the same signed-certification mechanic (Rule 4.06.1) that Ontario Regulation 275/26 wrote into the Rules of Civil Procedure generally, filed August 12, 2026 and in force since September 1, 2026, for factums and expert reports alike.
What's actually at stake if you skip it
The direction lists a real range of consequences for non-compliance, and none of them require proving AI was specifically involved — a fabricated citation from any source triggers the same certification breach:
- Public reprimand of the counsel or litigant on the record.
- Cost orders — the same mechanism behind a $31,150 award against an Ontario lawyer this year.
- An adjourned or dismissed hearing, if the failure disrupts the proceeding.
- Contempt proceedings, for serious or repeated breaches.
- Referral to the Law Society of Ontario — a separate professional-conduct track.
A file doesn't always stay in one venue: a Small Claims matter that gets appealed moves into Divisional Court, and the certification duty applies the moment it does — one more layer on top of the firm-wide compliance obligations covered in our By-Law 9 trust-accounting guide. DROZlegal's litigation drafting tools hyperlink every cited authority to its live CanLII record while drafting — a lawyer still verifies and signs, every time.