[{"id":3241473,"description":"CALL member Erica Friesen, Research and Instruction Librarian & Online Learning Specialist at the Lederman Law Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario recently wrote an article on \" Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers \". It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on September 28, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. New academic year; new legal research tools. Something new always comes out right as another cohort of students is gearing up to begin their law degree. And, as with many new product launches these days, “artificial intelligence” is often a prominently displayed term with accompanying materials. As legal publishers continue to launch AI-driven research tools in Canada, what do students and other novice researchers need to know to be prepared for their first forays into legal research? Lexis recently launched the latest version of their legal research platform, Lexis+ Canada, for Canadian law schools. It features significant updates that employ artificial intelligence, including a “Brief Analysis” tool in line with similar products offered by Westlaw Edge (on the US platform) and vLex (already available in Canada). According to Lexis+, this tool helps researchers “expedite completion of briefs and other legal documents.” Once your document is uploaded, it spits out a report including the following categories: 1) recommended cases, 2) cases and legislation cited in your document, 3) jurisdiction, and 4) extracted and recommended concepts. While I do not intend to comment on the utility of this tool for practitioners, I have no doubt that students beginning law school or working in summer or articling positions are bound to encounter this new feature sooner or later. When you do, you may have questions: should I be using this tool? How or how not? The landing page for this tool in Lexis+ contains no information on how this tool works and the Lexis+ Canada “Help” database so far contains minimal documentation. Confusion or uncertainty is understandable with such opacity. To gain some insight, let’s run an experiment: take two case comments written by different authors on the same Supreme Court case from 2004. [1] An older decision means that we should retrieve an abundance of recommendations from the intervening 18 years. Both comments include an overview of the area of law at the time of this decision as well as an analysis of how this particular decision would change the area of law. Once Lexis analyzed these documents, I exported the resulting report and compared the results for each comment. Here are the two documents, in case you’d like to run the experiment yourself: Comment A: Teresa Scassa, “Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004) 3:2 CJLT 89. Comment B: WL Hayhurst, “The Canadian Supreme Court on Copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004-2005) 41 Can Bus LJ 134. Recommended Cases “Recommendations” is the section of the Brief Analysis report that lists additional case law for you to consider adding to your legal document. Brief Analysis recommended 58 unique cases in total between Comment A and Comment B. However, only 10 of those cases were the same between the two documents (after adjusting for “recommended” cases that were actually cited in the other document). See Figure 1 . Key takeaway: Legal research and writing is an art, not a science. AI-driven tools like these run on the material that you upload, so you can expect substantially different results depending on the quality of analysis and the decisions you made in producing the original document. This does not mean that there is no value in using the tool, but you cannot expect it to help you build something from nothing. Recommendations are based on the content in the document,","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12957419","titre":"CALL Member Article: Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers"},{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and <a","id":3241460,"titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT","id":3194910,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200"}]