In Canada and the United States, access to justice is under siege—not by hackers or criminals, but by a small cartel of companies and non-profits profiting or getting large grants from public legal data paid for by the taxpayers.
The ongoing lawsuit between CanLII and Caseway has brought this issue to the forefront, exposing an uncomfortable truth: publicly funded court decisions are locked behind gatekeepers who monetize access under the guise of public service.
Make no mistake—this isn’t about protecting the public interest or advancing access to justice. It’s about power, multi-million dollar grants, and billions in profit.
CanLII, Jurisage, and similar entities claim to champion public access to the law, yet they wield their dominance to stifle competition and innovation. As the Chief Strategy Officer of Jurisage, Aaron Wenner’s recent defence of this status quo in Canadian Lawyer attempts to paint his organization as a protector of public legal information.
Ridiculous.
Aaron Wenner’s rhetoric obscures a more troubling reality: these organizations profit from hoarding public data, maintaining a system where innovation is not welcome unless it bows to their interests. Of course, they want to keep companies like Caseway out of the space.
Can anyone own court decisions?
Every year, courts produce tens of thousands of court rulings—decisions funded entirely by Canadian and American taxpayers. These are not proprietary assets of aggregators like CanLII or Jurisage; they are public documents.
However, these groups receive the decisions from the courts by email, add them to their platforms, and then charge fees for access and use their influence to block competitors from entering the market. Alternatively, the non-profits receive millions in grants each year.
This raises a fundamental question: Who owns public legal data? The answer should be simple: the public. And yet, companies like Caseway, which aim to make this data more accessible and usable for Canadians, face lawsuits and accusations of data exploitation.
These case law companies argue that it bear the burden of convincing courts to share rulings, which is a convenient distraction. Organizing public data does not entitle a company to own it. Courts are the source of these decisions. Why aren’t the courts suing Caseway? Because the courts recognize that this data belongs to everyone.
Gatekeeping in the Name of Responsibility
How does Jursage get the court decisions? My investigation turned up that there are only four case law editors in Canada: CanLII, the Quebec Bar Library, LexisNexis, and Thompson Reuters.
Jursage has a very close relationship with CanLII.
CanLII and Jurisage perpetuate a model where access is only granted to those with the means to pay or institutional ties. They operate under the guise of responsibility while keeping innovation locked out and the competition it brings.
And let’s not forget groups like CanLII are part of the Free Access to Law Movement, a global network of key organizations dedicated to the free and open dissemination of legal information.
A System Failing The Public
The Canadian legal system is failing the people it’s supposed to serve. Around 70% of Canadians facing legal issues don’t have a lawyer, often because they can’t afford one.
Resources are limited, legal processes are opaque, and public tools like CanLII are built for lawyers, not the general public. Aaron Wenner may laud CanLII as a “shining example” of public access, but its complexity makes it inaccessible to most Canadians without a legal background.
Caseway’s mission is to change that. By leveraging artificial intelligence, we aim to make the justice system more approachable for lawyers and individuals, small businesses, and families facing life-altering disputes.
Whether it’s a tenant fighting eviction, a small business resolving a contract issue, or a parent navigating divorce proceedings, our tools are designed to serve the underserved. This isn’t exploitation—it’s empowerment.
The Real Threat to Justice
The real threat to justice isn’t Caseway or companies like it. The danger lies in a system where legal data—funded by taxpayers—is controlled by a few gatekeepers who profit from the status quo.
Innovation doesn’t hinder public access; it expands it. Imagine if geographical data had been locked away from developers—would we have Google Maps today?
Should we have stopped pharmaceutical companies from using publicly funded medical research to develop life-saving drugs? Of course not. Innovation thrives when public resources are accessible.
The Case Law Editors
The lawsuit against Caseway is a microcosm of a more significant battle for the future of legal innovation. Gatekeepers like CanLII and Jurisage want to maintain dominance, framing newcomers as reckless disruptors rather than competitors. Aaron Wenner warns against “permitting exploitation,” but let’s call it what it is: a defence of entrenched interests.
No one disputes that aggregating and organizing legal data requires effort. However, this work does not justify claiming ownership over information that belongs to all Canadians. Public legal data should be accessible, and tools to navigate it should be inclusive.
The Fight for Open Access
Caseway is the underdog in this fight, but we’re not backing down. We’re committed to creating a free API for court decisions and building useful legal tech tools beyond raw data aggregation. We aim to make legal information accessible to everyone, regardless of their means or expertise.
The debate over public legal data is about who defines justice’s future. Will it remain locked behind paywalls, accessible only to the few, or will it be open to innovation, serving everyone?
It’s a fight for access to justice, the democratization of legal knowledge, and the principle that the law belongs to the people. It’s a fight worth having—and one we’re proud to lead.
Author: Alistair Vigier is the CEO of Caseway, a legal technology company committed to democratizing access to justice by leveraging artificial intelligence to make legal information more accessible and actionable for everyone.
