The Superior Court of Québec has set aside an arbitral award and, in doing so, established guidelines governing the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings. The decision, reported by Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG), signals that Québec courts will now scrutinize how parties and tribunals deploy AI tools in the arbitral process.

The court's ruling rests on two pillars. First, the Superior Court of Québec set aside the arbitral award at issue. Second, and perhaps with broader significance for the profession, the court took the opportunity to establish guidelines for the use of AI — an indication that the technology's spread into dispute resolution has now drawn explicit judicial attention at the trial-court level in Québec.

The Superior Court of Québec, the province's court of general jurisdiction, rendered the decision. The case name, docket number, and precise date do not appear in the available source material, and practitioners should consult the full judgment for the exact citation.

What the Court Decided

The operative holding is straightforward: the arbitral award did not survive judicial review. The Superior Court of Québec set it aside. The court then went further than the parties' dispute required. It laid down guidelines addressing how artificial intelligence should be used in arbitration.

This dual outcome — relief on the award itself plus forward-looking guidance on AI — makes the judgment significant beyond the immediate parties. Québec arbitrators, counsel, and institutions now have a judicial reference point for AI use in arbitral proceedings.

The AI Guidelines

According to BLG's analysis, the court established guidelines for the use of AI. The judgment therefore joins a small but growing body of decisions in which courts have addressed artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. What distinguishes this ruling is that the guidelines originate from a superior court sitting in judicial review of an arbitral award, rather than from a regulator or a tribunal's own practice direction.

For arbitration practitioners in Québec, the judgment raises practical questions they will need to answer going forward: when and how parties must disclose AI use in the preparation of submissions, what limits apply to AI-generated analysis, and what consequences follow from non-compliance. The precise content of the guidelines is set out in the judgment itself, and counsel should review the full text before advising clients.

Practical Consequences for Practitioners

The decision has immediate implications. Arbitrators seated in Québec should review the court's guidelines and adjust their procedures accordingly. Counsel preparing written submissions, legal research, or evidence summaries with AI assistance should consider disclosure obligations the guidelines may impose. Parties considering challenges to arbitral awards now have a further ground to explore where AI use in the arbitration may have fallen short of the standards the court has articulated.

Institutional users of arbitration — businesses with Québec-seated clauses in particular — should update their internal litigation protocols. A Québec seat now carries a defined judicial framework for AI in the underlying arbitration.

Setting Aside the Award

On the core relief, the court set aside the arbitral award. The grounds on which the court relied, and the relationship between those grounds and the AI guidelines, are detailed in the judgment. Practitioners handling applications to annul or set aside awards under Québec law should read the decision in full, as the reasoning may inform future applications to the Superior Court of Québec.

The Broader Picture

Courts and tribunals across jurisdictions are beginning to grapple with artificial intelligence in legal processes. Québec's Superior Court has now contributed a concrete set of guidelines arising from a live dispute. For a profession that has relied heavily on informal norms and voluntary disclosure around AI, a judicial pronouncement of this kind carries weight.

The judgment is likely to feature in future applications involving both the setting aside of awards and allegations of improper AI use in arbitration. Counsel should monitor how subsequent panels of the Superior Court of Québec apply and interpret the guidelines, and whether the Court of Appeal of Québec weighs in.

Key Takeaways

• The Superior Court of Québec set aside an arbitral award and established guidelines for the use of AI in arbitration.
• The judgment provides a judicial reference point for AI use in Québec-seated arbitrations.
• Practitioners should review the full decision for the exact case citation, the grounds for setting aside the award, and the precise content of the AI guidelines.

This report is based on publicly available information concerning the decision as reported by Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Readers should consult the judgment itself before relying on any aspect of it.