Authored By: Fabiha Hassan
Mount Royal University
- Introduction
Justice is often described as a fundamental pillar of a democratic society – yet for many Canadians, the greatest obstacle lies not in whether they possess legal rights, but in whether they are able to exercise them. Despite Canada’s commitment to the rule of law and equal access, thousands of individuals encounter legal disputes each year (Statistics Canada, 2022) without the financial means, legal knowledge, or institutional support necessary to navigate increasingly complex legal procedures (Canadian Judicial Council, n.d.). The result is a crisis in which procedural barriers – not the absence of legal rights themselves – frequently determine legal outcomes.
The challenge is particularly evident among low-income individuals, who often fall outside the eligibility requirements for legal aid while remaining unable to retain private counsel. Rising legal costs, prolonged court delays, and the technical complexity of legal processes have contributed to a growing number of self represented litigants throughout Canada.Though legal aid organizations and pro bono initiatives continue to provide valuable services, these institutions have struggled to meet increasing demand amid longstanding funding constraints (Canadian Bar Association, n.d.). Consequently, many individuals abandon legitimate legal claims as they are unable to successfully complete procedural requirements rather than because their legal position lacks merit.
Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have generated considerable interest in whether technology can reduce these procedural barriers by assisting individuals with legal information, document preparation, and administrative tasks (Dylag, 2024). However, the integration of AI into legal services also raises significant concerns regarding accuracy, accountability, and professional responsibility. Rather than viewing AI as a substitute for legal professionals, this article argues that its greatest value lies in supporting procedural access to justice through institutionally supervised legal assistance.
- Canada’s Access to Justice Crisis
Access to justice has long been recognized as an essential component of Canada’s legal system and an indispensable feature of the rule of law (Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014). Though Canadian legislation establishes extensive legal protections, the ability to enforce those rights often depends upon an individual’s financial resources, geographic location, and familiarity with legal procedures (Canadian Judicial Council, n.d.). Consequently, many Canadians experience barriers long before a judge looks at their case. Therefore, the access to justice crisis is less a consequence of inadequate legal rights than of systemic obstacles that prevent individuals from effectively navigating the justice system.
The Growing Gap Between Access and Legal Rights
The increasing cost of legal representation has created a significant disparity between those who can afford legal assistance and those who cannot (Farrow et al., 2016). Though legal aid programs exist for financially disadvantaged individuals, these services are subject to strict financial eligibility requirements and provide limited institutional resources (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). As demand continues to outpace available funding, numerous Canadians find themselves excluded from both publicly funded assistance and the private legal market.
This phenomenon is commonly denoted as Canada’s “missing middle” – individuals whose income is too high to be eligible for legal aid thresholds but remain insufficient to retain counsel (Bar Talk, 2024). Individuals without representation must independently interpret legislation, prepare court documents, and meet filing deadlines – despite possessing little or no legal training. Procedural errors, rather than substantive legal weakness, often become the determining factor in whether claims succeed.
The increasing prevalence of self-represented litigants illustrates this structural imbalance (Department of Justice Canada, 2022). Canadian courts have reported substantial growth in individuals appearing without legal counsel, the largest number being found in family and civil proceedings. Self-represented litigants frequently require additional assistance from judges and court staff, increasing administrative burdens and contributing to judicial delay.
Geographic Inequality
This legal crisis is further intensified by Canada’s geography. Remote and rural communities often experience significantly reduced access to legal professionals, creating disparities that cannot be explained only by income.
Nunavut illustrates these challenges particularly well. The dispersed population in the area, along with a limited legal infrastructure and reliance on circuit courts create substantial procedural obstacles for residents requiring legal assistance (Nunavut Courts, 2025). As judges and lawyers periodically travel between isolated communities instead of having a continuous presence, there are frequent delays before obtaining legal advice and appearing before the court. These barriers are only compounded by the high costs of transportation and limited availability of services, making timely access to justice especially difficult.
Linguistic Complexity
Even where legal services are physically accessible, procedural complexity presents yet another obstacle for many Canadians. Legal documents are frequently drafted using highly technical terminology that presumes familiarity with legal concepts (Han et al., 2024). Individuals lacking legal education may struggle to interpret these requirements, understand filing obligations, or distinguish between substantive legal rights and administrative steps required in order to enforce those rights.
These challenges are especially significant for newcomers to Canada and individuals whose primary language is neither English nor French (Statistics Canada, 2026). As the Canadian population becomes increasingly linguistically diverse, communication barriers continue to undermine equal participation in legal proceedings. The cost associated with professional translation and interpretation services further compound existing financial barriers, stranding many who are unable to fully understand documents that directly affect their legal rights (Moore et al., 2024).
This complexity also contributes to the broader phenomenon of legal disengagement (Farrow et al., 2016). Research has consistently demonstrated that individuals who are confronted with confusing legal processes are more likely to abandon otherwise valid claims as they perceive the justice system to be both intimidating and inaccessible.
Why Reform Matters
Collectively, these barriers demonstrate that Canada’s access to justice crisis is fundamentally procedural rather than being doctrinal. The legal system generally provides mechanisms through which individuals may vindicate their rights; however, many citizens lack the ability to fully utilize those mechanisms, either due to financial, geographic, or linguistic barriers. Addressing these shortcomings therefore becomes one of the most pressing challenges which Canada’s justice system faces today.
In the context of these barriers, technological innovation offers an avenue through which these barriers can be reduced. AI possesses the intelligence to easily improve access to information and assist self represented litigants in navigating procedural requirements and simplifying document preparation. However, before evaluating these priorities, it is necessary to examine the legal principles and regulatory framework governing the responsible integration of AI into Canadian legal services.
- Framework Governing AI and Access to Justice
Though neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor any federal statute explicitly establishes a general right to legal representation in civil matters, courts in the Canadian justice system have consistently recognized that access to justice is an essential component of the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized that legal rights are of little practical value if individuals cannot realistically access the institutions which are responsible for enforcing their rights.
The rapid emergence of AI has introduced new questions regarding the delivery of legal services. While Canada is yet to enact legislation that directly and specifically regulates AI within legal practices, existing obligations continue to apply – regardless of whether legal assistance is delivered by humans or technology. Law societies require all lawyers to provide competent representation, uphold client confidentiality, and exercise independent judgement (Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2019). Consequently, AI cannot operate as a substitute for legal counsel where advice is required.
Instead, AI is best understood as a support tool which is capable of assisting with administrative tasks, including document preparation and retrieving legal information. When implemented with appropriate oversight, AI has the potential to complement existing legal services while remaining consistent with Canada’s broader commitment to fairness and accountability.
- Case Law Analysis
Canadian jurisprudence increasingly continues to recognize access to justice as a fundamental objective of the legal system. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, the Supreme Court of Canada identified access as justice to be one of the most pressing challenges within the legal system. The Court lowered the bar for summary judgement, encouraging reforms to improve efficiency – demonstrating that innovation within the justice system isn’t just permissible, but also necessary (Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014).
In Trial Lawyers Association of BC v. In British Columbia, the court reasoned that accessibility could not be enforced if individuals are financially prevented from pursuing them. As a result, the Supreme Court held that hearing fees were unconstitutional, as they effectively prevented individuals from accessing the legal system. Taken together, these decisions establish that accessibility is a constitutional concern rather than merely an administrative objective (Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014).
Although both these cases support reforms reducing barriers to justice, they do not suggest technology should replace legal professionals. Recent experiences involving AI illustrate why cautions are needed. In 2024, the Quebec Courts sanctioned a self-represented litigant after he relied on AI generated representatives, using fabricated information to present his case (Lowrie, 2024). This incident highlights the limitations of such large language models, which generate responses based on predictive algorithms instead of legal reasoning (Stryker & Scapicchio, 2024). Hence, AI may create convincing but inaccurate case citations. Rather than replacing lawyers, AI should be integrated as a carefully supervised tool capable of excelling accessibility without compromising the integrity and reliability of the legal system.
- AI as Procedural Tool
The preceding frameworks discussed in the former section demonstrate that improving access to justice requires a reduction in procedural barriers – but requires fairness and integrity of the legal system to still remain intact. Within this context. AI should be viewed solely as a tool to enhance accessibility for those who would otherwise struggle to navigate legal processes alone. Numerous legal disputes involve standardized administrative tasks rather than legal analysis, such as completing court forms and organizing supporting documentation, identifying filing requirements, and understanding the procedural requirements – all of which are often the first encounters self-represented litigants face. AI has the ability to translate complex legal terminology into plain language, provide step by step procedural guidance, and generate standard legal documents (So, 2026). By simplifying these routine processes, AI can reduce errors that frequently delay proceedings.
AI can also improve the efficiency of institutions themselves. Courts and legal aid organizations continue to deal with backlog and increasing caseloads. Automating administrative tasks would allow legal professionals to devote more time to matters which require legal judgement and decision-making. In this respect, AI functions as a complement to existing legal services.
Importantly, the role of AI must remain limited strictly to procedural assistance. Determining legal rights and negotiating settlements or completing any legal tasks which require ethical judgement and contextual reasoning are things which AI fail to replicate. As a result, it should be implemented as an institutional support mechanism operating under the supervision of lawyers, courts, and legal aid organizations. When used in this manner, AI has the potential to strengthen procedural access while still remaining consistent with the constitutional principles of fairness and rule of law that underpin Canada’s legal system.
- Challenges and the Need for Institutional Oversight
The considerable potential in improving procedural access to justice with AI is something that could greatly benefit the legal system. However, its implementation must be approached cautiously. Unlike professionals, AI systems do not exercise independent legal judgement. Instead, it relies on statistical patterns – meaning that outputs can be incomplete or even entirely fabricated (McKendrick, 2024). While these may have relatively minor consequences in other contexts, errors in a legal proceeding significantly undermines an individual’s ability in obtaining a fair hearing.
For this reason, institutional oversight is essential to any successful implementation of AI within Canada’s justice system (Loriggio, 2024). Instead of operating independently, AI should be integrated into already existing legal organizations, especially so that legal professionals can oversee the information provided by these systems. Such collaboration would enable AI to improve efficiency without compromising the integrity of the justice system.
- Conclusion
Canada’s crisis demonstrates that legal rights alone are insufficient if individuals cannot realistically exercise them. Financial constraints, procedural complexity, geographic isolation continue to prevent many Canadians from obtaining meaningful access. As self-representation rates continue to grow and courts face increasing administrative demands, traditional approaches alone are unlikely to resolve these longstanding challenges.
This article has argued that AI offers a promising means of improving procedural access to justice when implemented within an appropriate legal framework. Canadian courts have consistently prioritized access to justice, emphasizing that legal procedures should facilitate, not impede, the fair resolution of disputes. AI can contribute to this objective by assisting with routine procedural tasks such as document preparation, legal information retrieval, and plain-language guidance, thereby reducing barriers for individuals who fail to afford legal representation. However, its effectiveness depends upon clearly defined limitations. AI should supplement – not replace, the expertise of lawyers. Ultimately, the success of AI support within the legal system will be measured by its capacity to ensure that justice becomes more equitable and effective for those who need it most.
Reference(S):
Bar Talk. (2024, December 1). Centering the client and serving the missing middle (J. McLaren, Ed.).
https://www.bartalk.org/article/the-profession/centering-the-client-and-serving-the-missin g-middle
Canadian Judicial Council. (n.d.). Understanding your judicial system.
https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/resources-centre/understanding-your-judicial-system Canadian Bar Association. (n.d.). Providing legal services.
https://cba.org/resources/reconciliation-equality-and-diversity/reaching-equal-justice-adv ocacy-guide/providing-legal-services/
Department of Justice Canada. (2022). General conclusion: Environmental scan- Access to justice in both languages. Government of Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/franc/enviro/conclusion.html
Department of Justice Canada. (2023). Legal aid applications. Government of Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/aid-aide/2024/p3.html
Dylag, M. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on access to justice: Predictive Analytics and the legal services market. Dalhousie Law Journal.
https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/dlj/vol48/iss1/14/
Farrow, T. C. W., Currie, A., Aylwin, N., Jacobs, L., Northrip, D., & Moore, A. (2016). Everyday legal problems and the cost of justice in Canada: Overview report. Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.
Han, Y., Cross, A., & Bergmann, J. H. M. (2024). The use of readability metrics in legal text: A systematic literature review. arXiv.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Use-of-Readability-Metrics-in-Legal-Text%3 A-A-Han-Ceross/3d60228dea2813b0d1a3778e6863f6903d0c843d
Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87.
Loriggio, P. (2024, November 19). Increasing AI use in Canadian courtrooms carries risk. CBC News.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/increasing-ai-use-canadian-courtrooms-carries-r isk-9.7031131
Lowrie, M. (2024, October 14). Quebec judge fines man $5,000 for improper use of artificial
intelligence in court. Global News.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11478187/quebec-man-improper-use-artificial-intelligence-co urt/
McKendrick, J. (2024, June 26). Machine-suggested, human-verified: In search of AI’s elusive trust factor. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/06/26/machine-suggested-human-verif ied-in-search-of-ais-elusive-trust-factor/
Moore, L., Permutter, M., & Farrow, T.C.W. (2024). Public and private spending on justice in Canada: Translation, expert evidence, and access costs. Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=cfcj Nunavut Courts. (2025). What is a circuit court?
https://www.nunavutcourts.ca/annualreports/what-is-a-circuit-court
So, J. (2026, March 10). AI could help increase access to legal assistance, ABA president says in podcast appearance. Canadian Lawyer.
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/international/ai-could-help-increase-access-to -legal-assistance-aba-president-says-in-podcast-appearance/393828
Statistics Canada. (2022, January 18). Experiences of serious problems or disputes in the Canadian provinces, 2021.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220118/dq220118c-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2026, January 8). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity statistics. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/immigration_and_ethnocultural_diversity Stryker, C., & Scapicchio, M. (2024, March 22). What is generative AI? IBM. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/generative-ai
Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31
