Disclosure: this article is written and published by DROZlegal, which competes in adjacent territory. Every claim about Caseway comes from three of its own pages read on November 3, 2026 (home, pricing and privacy) and is attributed to them. “Not stated” means the page was silent, not that the answer is no. We did not trial the product, so we say nothing about answer quality or accuracy. This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects publicly available information as of November 3, 2026.
What the pages say
| Question | What the pages say |
|---|---|
| What it is | Three products: Casey (legal research), CaseForm (form completion and filing) and Synthium (a validation and governance layer). The home page calls Caseway an “operational AI partner, not a model company.” |
| Coverage | Casey draws on “millions of Canadian and U.S. court decisions.” Ontario, or any province, is not mentioned on the home page. Which courts and date ranges are covered: not stated. |
| Pricing | Pricing page: Casey CA$49.00 per month in the monthly view (yearly price not shown); CaseForm $49 per seat per month under “Custom integration,” currency not stated; Synthium DataHub is an enterprise tier, contact the team. Usage limits: not stated. |
| Trial | Home page: “Casey is free to try for 7 days. Enterprise automation starts with a paid pilot.” The pricing page gives no trial terms. |
| Hosting | Home page: “On-prem or isolated cloud, inside your constraints,” and a “Canadian company” whose “data stays under a defensible jurisdiction.” No country, region or cloud provider is named. The privacy policy states only “encryption controls for data transfer and protected data stores.” |
| AI providers | Not named. The privacy policy refers only to contracted service providers acting on Caseway’s instructions. |
| Training | Privacy policy: “We do not use Casey legal content for model training or advertising.” Whether this covers the other products and any provider-side handling: not stated. |
| Retention | Casey uploads are cached and “automatically deleted within 24 hours”; chat histories are saved only when users opt in and can be deleted at any time. For CaseForm the policy says it does not retain users’ sensitive, case or matter data on its servers. Account and security records: not stated beyond “as required by law.” |
| Certifications | None named on the pages we read. We make no claim either way. |
Sources, read November 3, 2026: caseway.ai, its pricing page and its privacy policy.
Where the research index came from
Caseway’s research tool is built on court decisions, and in 2024 the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) sued the company over how decisions were collected; Caseway said it never bulk downloaded from CanLII. Law360 Pulse reported on March 24, 2026 that Caseway “reached a settlement” with the institute. The terms are behind that outlet’s paywall and we have not seen them, so we draw no conclusion beyond the fact of settlement. It is still a fair vendor-diligence question: ask where the decisions in the index came from and on what licence.
Five questions to put to the vendor
- In which country are prompts, uploads and chat histories stored and processed? “Isolated cloud” and “defensible jurisdiction” are not a place. Ask for the country and the cloud provider.
- Which AI model providers handle a Casey query, and where? The privacy policy names none. Ask for the list and each provider’s own retention and training terms.
- Does the 24-hour deletion cover provider-side copies and backups? The policy speaks of Caseway’s own cache.
- Which Ontario courts and tribunals are in the index, and how current? A tool that does not state its coverage cannot be assumed complete. See our LSO generative AI guidance explainer on a lawyer’s duty to verify.
- Who verifies a cited answer? Read the cited decision yourself before it goes into a filing. Our tracker of Ontario court AI disclosure rules shows what the courts expect.
If the answers are specific and in writing, Caseway may suit a low-risk research task at a low price. If they are vague, that is the finding. For the wider field, see our AI legal research software comparison, the CourtStairs read and the seven-vendor data-location matrix.