How Gatekeeping Public Data Threatens Access to Justice

Imagine a world where taxpayers fund the creation of vital public resources, yet a handful of organizations monopolize access, profiting from data that belongs to everyone. This is the current reality for Canadian court decisions—fundamental to our legal system—now controlled by a select few.

At the heart of this is what I like to jokingly call the “Case Law Cartel” — or, for a bit of flair, the “Lawfia.” This small group holds exclusive access to Canadian court decisions and actively works to exclude other organizations from entering the space.

Recently, groups like CanLII and Jurisage have worked together to keep Caseway out of the Canadian market.

Beyond this group, organizations like LexisNexis, the Quebec Bar Association Library, and Thomson Reuters also have access to court decisions directly from the courts.

CanLII, Jurisage, LexisNexis, the Quebec Bar Association Library, and Thomson Reuters are the only organizations that get emails from the courts with recent court decisions.

These organizations have created an environment where public legal data is monetized through grants, subscriptions, and anti-competitive practices, leaving new entrants like my company, Caseway, fighting for the ability to innovate with the latest technologies in the legal technology space.

Jurisage, LexisNexis, and Thompson Reuters profit from this exclusive access.

CanLII benefits by receiving millions of dollars in grants each year.

The Quebec Bar Association Library has been the only organization that has reached out to Caseway and seems interested in working together in some capacity. I’ve been told that Caseway works well in French, while CanLII doesn’t. Caseway is very popular in Quebec.

Who Owns Court Decisions?

Court decisions are written by judges and funded by Canadian taxpayers. These rulings are public records by nature, not proprietary assets of aggregators like CanLII or Jurisage. Yet these organizations treat them as private property, restricting access and profiting or receiving large grants from their dissemination.

Historically, many of these organizations committed to making court decisions widely available. CanLII, for example, is a signatory of the Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law, which pledges open access to public legal information. However, over time, the commitment to open access has given way to gatekeeping. In the declaration that CanLII signed, they committed to “not impede others from obtaining public legal information from its sources and publishing it.”

CanLII now restricts access to its data, filing lawsuits to keep competitors out, while groups like Jurisage—benefiting indirectly from CanLII's data through a correlated management team—publish blogs discrediting companies like mine attempting to enter the market.

Gatekeeping in Action

This gatekeeping actively stifles innovation. For example, CanLII recently filed a lawsuit against Caseway, claiming our efforts to aggregate public legal data were exploitative. Meanwhile, Jurisage, which has direct or indirect ties to CanLII, obtains indirect access to CanLII’s data while portraying people like me as threats to public access.

These actions create a chilling effect on innovation. The ecosystem becomes hostile to new entrants, keeping control firmly in the hands of a few. While I have yet to see LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters engage in wrongdoing in Canada, they still benefit from a system that entrenches barriers to competition, limiting options for more affordable and better AI products to come onto the market.

Why This Matters to Lawyers

The monopolization of legal data impacts the entire profession. Lawyers rely on efficient access to case law to serve their clients, yet the "Case Law Cartel" limits the software to manual processes or AI that doesn’t work well.

Imagine the possibilities if law firms had access to software that uses artificial intelligence tailored to specific practice areas—products that could speed up research, improve accuracy, and allow lawyers to focus on advocacy rather than admin. For example, Caseway often gets requests to build AI specific to family or real estate law.

The stakes are even higher for the general public. Around 70 percent of Canadians facing legal challenges go without representation, often due to cost and complexity. While CanLII is usually held up as a public resource, it is designed for legal professionals, not the public. This leaves ordinary Canadians unable to deal effectively with the legal system, widening the access-to-justice gap.

The Role of Innovation

Legal technology holds the potential to bridge these gaps. At Caseway, for example, we aim to create legal software that allows law firms to develop legal templates and court forms in seconds. This is not exploitation—it’s empowerment. However, the current environment makes it nearly impossible for new companies to thrive, even when their goals align with public interest.

At the same time that CanLII and Jurisage are accusing Caseway of wrongdoing, we are receiving large government grants and working with top AI researchers at the University of BC. We have started working on an improved case law database, which will soon have AI offered on top of it. And guess what? It’s going to be completely free.

Innovation in other sectors demonstrates what’s possible. Public geographical data enabled the creation of Google Maps, and public health research has led to life-saving medical breakthroughs. Why should legal information—a public resource taxpayer-funded—be treated differently?

A Call for Change

Public data belongs to the public, not a select group controlling access. While "cartel" may sound intense, it is defined as “an association of manufacturers or suppliers aiming to maintain high prices and restrict competition.” Organizations like CanLII and Jurisage (or just Aaron Wenner in his personal capacity) may not intentionally operate as a cartel. Still, their actions closely mirror those of one, limiting competition and access to publicly funded information.

Canadians must advocate for transparency and open access to court decisions. Policymakers and the courts should ensure that organizations like CanLII are held accountable for their commitments under the Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law. Courts, too, should revisit how their decisions are disseminated, ensuring they are freely available without gatekeeping.

Author: Al Vigier is the CEO of Caseway, a legal technology company committed to democratizing access to justice by leveraging artificial intelligence to make the law easier.