Ethical Obligations of Crown Counsel Regarding AI-Assisted Submissions and the "Human-in-the-Loop" Standard

Stephen Morris
May 12
5 min read

MEMORANDUM OF BRIEFS

TO: The Court / Crown Counsel

FROM: Stephen J. Morris (Self-Represented)

DATE: May 12, 2026

RE: Ethical Obligations of Crown Counsel Regarding AI-Assisted Submissions and the "Human-in-the-Loop" Standard

I. THE ISSUE

Does Crown Counsel breach its duty of candour and fairness by summarily dismissing the legal reasoning of a self-represented litigant (SRL) solely because that reasoning was synthesized with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

II. THE "SHIELD" CASES: RECENT AI PRECEDENTS (2024–2026)

The Crown frequently relies on a narrow set of "cautionary" cases to justify ignoring AI-assisted research. These cases focus on competence and integrity, not a ban on the technology itself:

Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285: The landmark "hallucination" case where a lawyer cited fake cases. The court ruled that competence in the use of technology is "critical" but did not ban AI. It established that human verification is the mandatory bridge between AI output and a court filing.
Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766 / 2025 ONSC 6785: This case escalated to criminal contempt because the lawyer lied about using AI and failed to review the citations. The precedent here is about dishonesty, not the tool. It confirms that "human review" of non-human technology is the gold standard for the administration of justice.
Lloyd’s Register Canada Ltd. v. Choi, 2025 FC 1233: The Federal Court removed a self-rep’s motion because it was "unreliable" due to fake citations. However, the court explicitly noted that the sanction was due to the lack of a declaration and the refusal to verify the law against official databases.

III. THE ARGUMENT: CROWN COUNSEL AS A "MINISTER OF JUSTICE"

The Crown is not an ordinary litigant; they are a "Minister of Justice." Their role is to ensure the law is applied correctly, not just to "win."

The "Double Standard": While lawyers are sanctioned for AI errors, the Crown often uses these same errors as an excuse to avoid engaging with accurate AI-assisted reasoning.
The Duty to the Self-Rep: Pursuant to Pintea v. Johns (2017 SCC) and the Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants, the Crown has a duty to ensure the court is not misled. If an SRL provides a valid Charter argument assisted by AI, the Crown cannot hide behind "technological skepticism" to avoid the substance of the law.
Technological Neutrality: The law is technology-neutral. A valid precedent found via ChatGPT is just as binding as one found in a physical library. If the citation is real and the reasoning is sound, the Crown’s refusal to address it is an obstruction of the "Substance Over Form" principle.

IV. THE "MODERN SELF-STYLED LITIGANT" STANDARD

The legal landscape has shifted. The modern litigant uses AI as a "Precision Research Engine."

The Human-in-the-Loop Protocol: When an SRL submits an "AI Declaration" (as required by the Federal Court 2024 Guidelines) and certifies that every case has been manually verified on CanLII, the "hallucination" argument is legally dead.
Crown Obsolescence: If Crown Counsel remains uninformed about AI capabilities, they risk falling below the Duty of Competence (Rule 3.1). A Crown who "doesn't believe in AI" is no different than a Crown who "doesn't believe in the internet."
Habeas Corpus and the "Tribunal Trap": As noted in Capano (2010) and R. v. Conception (2010), administrative deference is high. However, if AI-assisted research uncovers a jurisdictional error or a Section 7 breach that the Crown ignored, that failure is a reviewable error of law.

V. CONCLUSION & REMEDY

The Crown must be "better informed" to keep up with the independence of the people. They must move past the "Zhang/Ko" fear-mongering and adopt a professional standard that evaluates arguments on their merits, regardless of the research tool used.

The Rule Proposed: Where an SRL certifies manual verification of AI-assisted citations, the Crown is estopped from dismissing the argument based on its generative origin and must respond to the substantive law cited.

*******************************************************************************************

The AI Argument: A Self-Rep’s Guide to Forcing Legal Respect

The Scenario: You present a brilliant legal argument.

The Crown scoffs because you used AI to help find it.

They claim it’s "unreliable" or "artificial."

The Truth: They are using a "Form" argument to defeat a "Substance" reality.

Here is how you hold the line.

1. The Logic is Yours, Even if the Tool is New

A law degree is a credential, not a monopoly on logic.

If an AI helps you find a needle in a haystack, that needle is still sharp.

The Crown cannot dismiss a valid Charter argument just because of the "search engine" used.

The Counter-Punch: "Does the Crown dispute the validity of the cases cited, or are they simply uncomfortable with the efficiency of my research?"

2. Substance Over Form: The 2026 Mandate

The ancient maxim Breve judiciale non cadit pro defectu formae is your shield.

A legal submission does not fail because of a "defect of form"—like the use of AI.

If the substance of your reasoning is sound, the court is duty-bound to hear it.

The Strategy: Always verify your citations on CanLII.

Once the case is verified, it is no longer "AI-generated"—it is a Judicial Fact.

3. The "Human-in-the-Loop" Certification

To win, you must prove you are the pilot, not the passenger.

Include a Verification Statement in every filing to pre-empt the Crown’s "hallucination" attack.

"I certify that I have manually verified every authority in this document against official court records. I am the author of this reasoning; the AI was merely my librarian."

This moves the conversation from "scary technology" to "verified competence."

4. Leveraging Pintea v. Johns (2017)

The Supreme Court has already commanded that judges and Crown counsel must assist you.

They must ensure you can "meaningfully present your case."

If they ignore your research because it’s "too modern," they are obstructing your right to a fair hearing.

The Move: Remind the court that Pintea requires "accommodation" of the unique challenges faced by self-reps.

Access to advanced technology is part of that accommodation in the 21st century.

5. Don't Let Them Call You "Uninsured"

The Crown might treat you as a "risk" because you lack professional liability insurance.

The Rebuttal: "My standing in this court is constitutional, not commercial."

"I do not need an insurance policy to speak the truth about the Charter."

Your independence is your strength—use it to speak "resolutely and honourably."

The Bottom Line for the Self-Rep:

AI isn't a shortcut; it's an equalizer.

It gives you the "research capacity" of a big firm on a "zero-dollar" budget.

When the Crown tries to shame you for using it, they are admitting they can't beat your logic.

Verify the law. Stand your ground. Make them argue the merits.