For a doctoral thesis at the University of Toronto (U of T), only with approval given in advance. The School of Graduate Studies (SGS) requires the agreement of your supervisor and supervisory committee before you use generative AI in any part of researching or drafting the thesis. You then cite and describe that use in the thesis and answer for it at your final oral exam. SGS doesn't regulate master's theses, so those rules come from your graduate unit.
The SGS guidance, last updated September 9, 2026, puts the rule this way: “The use of generative AI tools in any aspect of researching or writing of the thesis must be done with the prior approval of the supervisor(s) and supervisory committee.” It also says students, supervisors, and graduate units must agree in advance how any tool will be used. SGS calls this guidance preliminary and says it may be updated, so read the current page before you rely on this summary.
SGS asks for careful citation and description of any use, and it gives searching, designing, outlining, drafting, and editing as examples, along with producing audio or visual content. It also warns that unauthorized use may count as an offense under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters and as research misconduct under the Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research.
No. SGS treats these as two separate questions: “Graduate students must seek and document approval from their supervisors and committees for the use of generative AI in writing even if they already have approval to use generative AI tools in their research.” A committee that accepts a tool in your methods may still restrict it in your chapters, so raise both in the same conversation.
On the last row, SGS says: “Students must be able to describe and defend any use of generative AI, as well as the contents of the thesis during their final oral examination.” It adds that the outcome rests on your performance in that exam as well as on the written thesis.
| Stage | What SGS expects | What to have ready |
|---|---|---|
| Before you use a tool | Prior approval from your supervisor and supervisory committee, which SGS recommends you document in writing | The email or meeting note, with the tool and the task named |
| During the work | A clear way to identify your contribution and the tool's, and clarity on what evidence of your own work you need to provide | A dated log of what you asked and what you kept |
| In the thesis | A citation and description of which tools you used, and how and why, in the same way you describe other analytical tools | A passage in the place your committee wants it |
| At the final oral exam | You answer for any AI use as well as for the contents of the thesis | An account of each use in your own words |
SGS doesn't regulate those. It recommends that graduate units apply the doctoral principles to master's research, and it says the university's conduct code and research ethics policy apply to master's work too. The answer for you is therefore up to your graduate unit.
The doctoral guidelines expect original research and a thesis that advances knowledge. SGS says work produced with generative AI may not meet that requirement, because these tools generate from existing sources. It also notes that they can reference scholarly works that don't exist and can present untrue statements as facts, and that you stay responsible for everything in your thesis, whatever its source.
SGS raises a concern about learning as well. In its account, drafting and revising are part of how graduate students deepen their engagement with their own research, and handing part of that to a tool could weaken those skills.
This example is made up. A doctoral student in public health gets an email from the committee approving an AI tool to sort interview transcripts by theme. Months later, the same student asks the tool to shorten a section of the literature review. The email covers the first use. The second is a use in writing, so under the SGS guidance it needs its own approval, and both belong in the citation and description in the thesis. One short message before the second use would have settled it.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
The SGS rule covers any aspect of researching or writing the thesis. Before you get comments on your draft from an AI tool, bring that up with your supervisor and supervisory committee, and cite and describe that use in the thesis if you go ahead. U of T has not reviewed or approved Esmond, and the decisions about your thesis stay with you and your committee.
Before you bring it up with your committee, you can read how Esmond works, open the sample report, and see whether you can use Esmond.
SGS doesn't ban it outright. It requires prior approval for a doctoral thesis, warns about originality and accuracy, and lets graduate units add rules for their field. Your committee can still say no.
SGS recommends documenting approval in writing for academic milestones. Separately, it says students must seek and document approval before using AI in their writing, even with approval for research. An email that names the tool and the task gives you that record.
SGS doesn't set one format. It asks graduate units to make their norms clear, and it raises prompts and full exchanges in an appendix as questions to settle. Ask your committee.
SGS tells supervisors to ask their graduate unit when they are uncertain about a use. Your graduate unit is the next step for you too.
Read on November 4, 2026.
Esmond is not taking orders on this site yet.