Does anyone know if there exists a comparison tool regarding the coverage of the major online subscription databases (such as Quicklaw and Westlaw)? I am envisioning a simple tool that would indicate their coverage of various courts over time, so one could know at a glance which database to consult for finding a particular case. I know that each database documents its own scope, but I was wondering if anyone out there has undertaken the project of compiling that information into a quick comparison chart. I realize that it would be a lot of work to keep up-to-date, but I thought perhaps an enterprising librarian might have already taken up the challenge. If so, please advise. Or if you have any other advice on this topic, please share. Thanks!

I have recently returned to work after a maternity leave. Now I am struggling with how to get back up to speed on all things legal research-related. Despite my best intentions, I was unable to stay on top of Slaw posts or Supreme Court decisions while at home. Now I am constantly second-guessing my research, worried that I have missed some new resource or decision. On the plus side, I am pleasantly surprised when I discover 'new' features on my favourite websites and online databases; of course, I have no idea how long they've been there, or what other ones I may be missing, but the ones I find I try to enjoy. I have (mostly) come to terms with the fact that I will just have to be extra-thorough in my work, trying to fill in a one-year gap, realizing that it is not possible to be on top of everything all the time. But I was wondering if you had any suggestions for getting back up to speed after being away from the legal research field, perhaps on a parental leave, medical leave or sabbatical. Are there any resources on this subject out there that I've missed, or has this topic been raised on Slaw in the past year?

I hate being reminded of the fallibility of technology. I love the confidence I feel from noting up a case using an electronic database; I hate it when I find that (contrary to the results of my electronic search) the case has in fact been overturned on appeal. I recently experienced a similar feeling when using the federal government's laws website. 

Perhaps I'm spoiled by the ability in electronic database programs like QuickLaw and WestLaw to step from "hit" to "hit" in my search results. Or maybe I'm just lazy. When I am looking for something on a webpage that does not offer this feature, I use the Ctrl+F shortcut available in Internet Explorer to "Find (on This Page)". You can imagine my surprise when, in viewing sections 468-492.2 of the Criminal Code, I was unable to find s. 487 (entitled "Information for search warrant") by pressing Ctrl+F and searching the page for the word "warrant". The only hit returned was in s. 475. Even using Ctrl+A to select all of the text on the page did not alter my results. Only if you highlight s. 487 itself will the search work (which defeats the purpose, if you did not know that the search warrant section was s. 487 to begin with). 

I always assumed that, so long as one clicked at least once in the relevant frame, the Ctrl+F shortcut would produce all of the instances of the searched words on the page. Obviously, this is not so. I'm assuming it has something to do with the way in which the page is coded. I raised the matter with the website's administrator, who advised that they are aware of the problem, but that it will only be addressed when a new version of the website is prepared (at some as-yet-unknown point in the future).

Similarly, I later opened the Criminal Code in CanLII. I tried to used Ctrl+F to find s. 686 by searching for "686". My search produced no results. And yet, by scrolling down, I was able to locate s. 686. Of course, using the federal legislation search template to find the text "686" and title "Criminal Code" brings up CanLII's handy step-by-step search tool, which leads you right to s. 686 (and highlights all other instances of the number throughout the Code).

All this to say - take heed that using the Ctrl+F shortcut in IE to search for words on a page may not always bring up all the relevant results. Better read through the page yourself, just to be sure! Or else switch to Firefox…

Legal researchers, what has your bar association done for you lately? What should it be doing? Are you content to join the substantive sections dealing with legal issues you research, or would you prefer to have a special section dedicated to legal research generally? I know that legal research sections have been established in British Columbia, Alberta (North and South), Manitoba and Quebec. Are there any others? In provinces where there is no separate legal research section, why is that? Is there any movement to create legal research sections in those jurisdictions? What about a national legal research section of the Canadian Bar Association? If this niche is not being filled by the bar association, are there other associations out there fulfilling this need (besides Slaw)?

Personally, I believe it is appropriate for the bar association to have a special section for legal researchers. When I left private practice to become a full-time research lawyer, I missed having a section that specifically related to my area of practice. Now that a legal research section has been established in my province, I have new opportunities for meeting like-minded colleagues and honing my legal research skills.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that I was the co-founder and am currently the co-chair of the Manitoba Bar Association’s Legal Research Section. It all started when I complained to Darla Rettie, another legal research lawyer in Winnipeg, about the lack of legal research resources available through the bar association. She was confident that, if we got the ball rolling, other legal researchers would come out of the woodwork and get on board. I’m happy to report that, one year later, the section currently boasts 70 members (which may not seem like a lot to you, but it is in Manitoba – especially for a new section) and has held a number of well-attended events in its inaugural year.

So I would challenge research lawyers in other provinces, where there is not yet a dedicated section of the bar association for legal research, to take the initiative and create such a section. I can tell you that the results will be well worth the initial effort. And if you’re interested in teaming up to hold some multi-jurisdictional events or pursue the idea of a national legal research section, please let me know.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to tap into Slaw's coast-to-coast reach for a quick poll: how many courts across the country have created a rule/practice direction/notice to the profession that lists common cases and says they don't have to be included in the case books filed by the parties? I was aware of such a list in Prince Edward Island, and I recently learned that such a practice has existed for some time in British Columbia and, more recently, before the Federal Court (though the current list appears to be limited to immigration matters). Where else? 

I can start us off by noting that this practice hasn't come to Manitoba…yet.

Maybe you too have experienced this frustration. You want to know how many judgments a particular appellate court judge has written. So you turn to your favourite case law search tool and type in the judge's name, perhaps using the special field designated for that purpose. Unfortunately, the results of your search include all of the cases where that judge was on the panel – not just those cases where the judge actually wrote a judgment. I know there are some articles that gather this kind of statistical data for certain courts at various times, but I was wondering if any Slawyers knew where this information was more readily accessible/searchable. I know there have been some great efforts on Wikipedia in the past, but these now seem out-of-date, and it doesn't appear that the Supreme Court website, the LexUM judgment database or TheCourt.ca seem to offer this type of service. Any hints or tips?

As I'm sure many of you are already aware, LexisNexis has received some interesting press lately. In the July 28, 2008 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, a LexisNexis search used by a DOJ employee is reprinted (on p. 21). This search was apparently used for vetting potential employees:

[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

For some "interesting" (not to say informed) commentary on the issue, check out the debate on Slashdot.

As you may have already heard:

1. You can now QuickCite statutes; and
2. Solicitor Forms & Precedents are now available through Quicklaw.

I haven't had much of an opportunity to explore the statutory QuickCite function yet, but from my first quick glance it seems like a welcome addition. You can access this feature when viewing a particular statutory provision by clicking on the QuickCite symbol, which looks like this: 

As for the scope of its coverage, according to the Source Information entry, "Federal and provincial statutory references from the last revisions, cited in case law decided from [1 January] 1992 are included (from [1 January] 2005 for Quebec). Constitutional Statutes cited in case law from 1992 are also included."

I often consult WestlaweCarswell for electronic access to the Index to Canadian Legal Literature. I use the search template designed for that purpose. Usually I rely on general keyword searches. But today, since my research related to a specific piece of legislation, I thought I would use the "Legislation" field. Unfortunately, my various search term combinations did not easily yield the results I sought.

Here is a hypothetical example to illustrate my point:

If I entered Criminal Code 123 into the "Legislation" field, I got one hit, which actually related to s. 123 of another act and a different section of the Criminal Code. If I searched "Criminal Code" and 123, I retrieved the same document. When I searched "Criminal Code" and 123 in the "Any Text" field, I got close to 30 hits, though many involved the Criminal Code and page 123, not s. 123. However, if you search Criminal Code s.123 (not Criminal Code s. 123, mind you – adding the extra space gets you the same one hit retrieved earlier), you are rewarded with a manageable number of hits that relate exactly to the section you are researching.

Obviously I'm doing something wrong. Perhaps this is what I get for trying to use the narrower fields of a search template. Does anyone have any suggestions for obtaining the best search results in these situations, without worrying about getting the search syntax perfectly correct? Or does the Legislation Name s.# combination always yield the best results?

Also, I noticed that the ICLL records relating to the section were not listed in the "Secondary Sources" portion of the section's KeyCite record. I know that such records are interlinked in the KeyCite records for cases; do they usually show up when searching legislation?

It was always my understanding that QuickLaw's Canadian case law coverage was equal, if not superior, to LexisNexis'. If you too were operating under that assumption, then the following may surprise you… 

I had found a reference to a case using the Nadin-Davis Sentencing Digest. Unfortunately, no citation was provided; it did, however, list the name of the case, the date (1986), the judge and the level of court. The digest entry also mentioned that the case had been appealed. So I set about to search for the case. 

I turned first to QuickLaw. I searched by case name and jurisdiction using the Court Cases search page and the All Canadian Court Cases database. In this way, I located the appellate decision, but it did not provide any further information (or a link) to the original sentencing decision. So then I searched by the judge's name and date. Still nothing. Later, I found a Weekly Criminal Bulletin digest for the case (searching All Canadian Digests – as the WCBs are not included in the All Canadian Court Cases database), but not its full-text.

I tried similar searches using eCarswell. I consulted the hardcopy Canadian Case Citations (which is always a joy when searching for a criminal case). Neither of these searches produced any further information about my case. 

Our librarian then suggested that I try LexisNexis. And lo and behold, there was the full-text of my case! It was contained in the WCBJ database. 

I then contacted QuickLaw to ascertain why this decision was available through LexisNexis but not QuickLaw. I was informed that "this is the only case law source that we have different from Lexis.com." Just my luck! 

So, if you are looking for a Canadian criminal case from the 1980s, you may wish to consult LexisNexis if QuickLaw doesn't produce any results, or only gives you a WCB digest. QuickLaw's WCB database "contains digests of criminal court judgments prepared by Canada Law Book since 1976." LexisNexis' WCBJ database "contains the unedited fulltext judgments and headnotes or all available criminal cases from courts across Canada since 1980." I thought it was particularly interesting that this was a Canada Law Book product. 

Have you had any similar experiences regarding gaps in QuickLaw's coverage that are filled by LexisNexis? If so, please advise.