Appendix A: Image Descriptions

Figure 2.1 description: A four-panel cartoon shows two women discussing primary sources of law. One explains that they include the Constitution, Statutes, Regulations, and Case Law, and that they can be found online through platforms like CanLII and Westlaw. The other woman smiles and says, “What a relief!”. [Return to Figure 2.1]

Figure 2.2 description: Screenshot of the Alberta Rules of Court on CanLII showing that the currency was ‘last updated from the Alberta King’s Printer’ on 2025-08-22. [Return to Figure 2.2]

Figure 2.3 description: Screenshot of the Judicature Act on CanLII with the following seven regulations listed in the left column:

• Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010
• Fees and Expenses for Witnesses and Interpreters Regulation, Alta Reg 227/2021
• Justices of the Peace 2017 Compensation Commission Regulation, Alta Reg 61/2017
• Justices of the Peace 2021 Compensation Commission Regulation, Alta Reg 64/2021
• Provincial Court Judges and Applications Judges 2021 Compensation Commission Regulation, Alta Reg 65/2021
• Surrogate Rules, Alta Reg 130/1995
• Transcript Fees and Format Regulations, Alta Reg 167/2010

[Return to Figure 2.3]

Figure 2.4 description: Two women chat in four panels about secondary sources like digests, books, and research tools, ending with one saying, “That’s helpful!” [Return to Figure 2.4]

Figure 3.1 description: Three-panel comic of a bearded man learning Boolean search.

• In the first panel, the man is visibly frustrated as he uses a laptop and says, “I can’t find anything!”
• In the second panel, someone is saying to him, “Try using boolean search terms…”
• In the third panel, the man is enthusiastically using the laptop and saying out loud, “PIZZA AND ROBOTS OR NINJAS NOT ZOMBIES!!!”

[Return to Figure 3.1]

Figure 3.2 description: Diagram of three Venn diagrams showing Boolean search operators. First diagram: “AND” shows the overlapping section between Keyword A and Keyword B with the label “BOTH Keywords.” Second diagram: “OR” shows both circles fully shaded, labelled “EITHER Keyword.” Third diagram: “NOT” shows only Keyword A’s circle shaded, excluding the overlap with Keyword B, labeled “First Keyword Only.” [Return to Figure 3.2]

Figure 4.1 description: A four-panel comic of a paralegal reading a book and explaining how to read case law.

• In the first panel, “Case law consists of written decisions by judges.”
• In the second panel, “A case has key elements like the purpose, facts, issues, and decision.”
• In the third panel, “Stare decisis means to stand by things decided.”
• In the fourth panel, “Learning to read cases is an important skill for paralegals.”

[Return to Figure 4.1]

Figure 4.2 description: An infographic explains the principle of stare decisis in Canadian common law with four textboxes. It shows that judges must follow binding precedents from higher courts in the same jurisdiction, unless substantive differences exist. It also notes that decisions from courts in other jurisdictions are not binding but may be persuasive.

The largest textbox at the top spans the length of three smaller textboxes arranged in a row beneath it.

• Top textbox: In the common law in Canada, judges must follow the principle of stare decisis, which requires that judges follow the previous rulings (i.e. precedents) of other judges in higher courts in their province or territory and the Supreme Court of Canada on the same issue.
• Bottom left textbox: A judge must follow similar decisions of the higher courts in the same jurisdiction. This means the judge would be bound by that precedent.
• Bottom middle textbox: The judge is bound by the precedent unless there are substantive factors that differentiate the case from the precedent.
• Bottom right textbox: A judge may follow similar decisions of courts in other jurisdictions if they find those decisions persuasive. The judge is not bound by the decision, but it can be used to persuade.

[Return to Figure 4.2]

Figure 5.1 description: A four-panel comic showing a paralegal using AI to draft a letter, verifying accuracy and case law, confirming details with a lawyer, and getting approval for the final version.

• A header spans the top of the first and second panels:  A PARALEGAL ETHICALLY USES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
• In the first panel, the paralegal is seated using a desktop computer, and the monitor displays an image of a robot that says, “Of course! I’ve generated a letter addressed to opposing counsel.”
• In the second panel, the paralegal is saying, “I need to review this letter for accuracy and ensure that any references to case law are not hallucinations before I forward this to my supervising lawyer.
• In the third panel, the paralegal is seated at a computer and speaking on a phone, “Good morning, lawyer! I’ve confirmed the information on the letter. Do you want to review it before I send it out?”
• In the fourth panel, the paralegal is with the lawyer and says, “Here is the final letter for your review.” The lawyer responds, “Great work!”

[Return to Figure 5.1]

Figure 6.1 description: Four icons highlight essential writing requirements. The first shows a document with the letters A, B, and C and a check mark, labelled ‘Free of Errors.’ The second features a person holding a magnifying glass with an eye, labelled ‘Attention to Detail.’ The third depicts an envelope with an @ symbol, labelled ‘Professional Emails.’ The fourth displays a clipboard with a checklist and a suited silhouette, labelled ‘Organize Ideas Clearly.’ [Return to Figure 6.1]

Figure 8.1 description:  An AI-generated three-panel comic illustrates a paralegal’s legal research process in three steps, using office scenes, speech bubbles, and visual prompts.

Step 1: Identify the legally relevant facts.

A paralegal sits at a desk with a laptop labelled “Paralegal in Practice,” a client file, a client intake form, and a fact checklist. Through the office window is a view of the Calgary Tower skyline. The paralegal says, “Before I research, I need to know what actually matters legally.” Sticky notes on the wall read: Who? What? When? Where? and What does the client want? The fact checklist includes: Documents, Dates, People, Events, and Relief sought. A framed sign reads, “FACTS FIRST. LAW FOLLOWS.”

Step 2: Turn the facts into a legal question.

The paralegal researches at a computer. A whiteboard displays the legal question: “In Alberta, what are the rules and deadlines for a landlord to retain a damage deposit?” The computer screen shows keywords including tenant, damage deposit, Alberta, and deadline, with search results for the Alberta Tenancy Act, Residential Tenancies Act Cases, and a Practice Note on Security Deposits. The paralegal says, “Now I can search the right area of law and check whether the cases are still good law.” Books labelled Secondary Sources (Textbooks, Practice Notes, Treatises, Articles) point toward Primary Sources (Legislation, Regulations, Case Law). A checklist titled Good Law? includes: On point? Still Good Law? Not overruled? No negative treatment? Jurisdiction?

Step 3: Explain the answer clearly.

A framed sign reads, “CLARITY BUILDS TRUST.” A mug on the lawyer’s desk says, “GOOD LAWYERING STARTS WITH GOOD RESEARCH.” The paralegal presents a research memo to a supervising lawyer that is organized into four sections:

• Issue: What is the legal issue I am addressing?
• Law: What does the legislation and case law say?
• Analysis: How do the facts apply to the law?
• Likely Outcome: What is the most likely result and why?

The paralegal states, “Research only helps if the findings are organized and easy to understand.” The supervising lawyer replies, “Great. You connected the law to the client’s facts.”

[Return to Figure 8.1]