CBA Submits Recommendations on AI Transparency to ISED

Via email: AIConsultations-ConsultationsIA@ised-isde.gc.ca Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 235 Queen Street Ottawa, ON K1H 0H5 To responsible department: Re: ISED Consultation on AI Transparency We write on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association's Privacy and Access Section and Intellectual Property Law Section (CBA Sections) in response to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)'s consultation on AI transparency. The CBA is a national association of over 40,000 lawyers, law students, notaries and academics, and our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA Privacy Section comprise lawyers across Canada with in-depth knowledge of privacy and access to information law and policy, and of intellectual property law. The Intellectual Property Law Section deals with legal issues around ownership, licensing, transfer and protection of intellectual property and related property rights. Our work includes patents, trademarks, copyright, industrial designs, plant breeders’ rights and trade secrets. Transparency about AI-generated content can support public trust, but the CBA Sections caution against treating all uses of AI in content creation in the same manner. The threshold question should be when the use of AI is sufficiently material to warrant disclosure. AI tools are increasingly embedded in ordinary drafting, editing, translation, image enhancement and other commonly used applications. Requiring disclosure whenever AI has played any role in producing content could result in overly broad notices that provide little meaningful information to the public. Over time, ubiquitous disclosure may also lead to notice fatigue and reduce the value of disclosures in situations where authenticity is genuinely important. Central to that threshold is the distinction between content that is AI-generated and content that is merely AI-assisted. That distinction is developed further in response to Question 2. The need for transparency is strong where a person is likely to rely on content as an authentic record of what someone said, did or created. Examples may include realistic synthetic audio, images or video depicting identifiable persons; content that falsely represents that a person said or did something; impersonation or fraud; false content that could have substantial impact on persons; deceptive commercial representations; and content used in legal, governmental, electoral or other contexts where individuals are expected to rely on the authenticity of the material. Deepfakes merit particular attention. In its October 2025 submission on Canada's AI Strategy 1 , (the National Sprint Submission) the CBA recommended that the federal government consider stronger legal protections against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's likeness or voice through AI-generated deepfakes. The submission proposed consideration of a federal tort of appropriation of personality or, in the case of commercial artists, a federal right of publicity. It also suggested that Canada consider protections for personal attributes such as an individual's face and voice. At the same time, not every modification made with the assistance of AI should require disclosure. Minor editing, formatting, accessibility assistance or other uses that do not materially affect the substance or authenticity of content should generally not attract the same obligations as synthetic content capable of misleading the public. A similar distinction is reflected in other CBA work concerning AI disclosure. In its May 2025 submission on immigration modernization 2 , the CBA recommended a mandatory disclosure rule where AI is used to create pleadings or evidence before the Immigration and Refugee Board, while distinguishing non-essential administrative technologies. This supports a contextual approach under which disclosure is tied to the significance of AI use rather than the mere presence of A