Record watch: transcription and justice in Canada and the U.S. — September 2026
California allows electronic recording when no court reporter is available, North Dakota moves to audio, with AI next, and in Quebec the language of official documents is back before the Superior Court.
California: “better than no record at all”
On August 10, 2026, the California Supreme Court held unanimously that electronic recording must be allowed when no certified court reporter is available. “A verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. According to CalMatters, more than three million proceedings since 2023 went without a transcript for lack of reporters — and without a transcript, litigants who could not pay for a private reporter could not appeal.
Why it matters: it is a large-scale demonstration that the record is what makes an appeal possible.
North Dakota: audio first, AI next
Since January 1, 2026, North Dakota courts must audio-record every proceeding, under rules adopted unanimously by the state Supreme Court’s rules committee. The rules open the way to transcripts produced by artificial intelligence; at first, court reporters continue to prepare them. Judges in three districts had opposed the change, citing the risk of errors and of exposing confidential information that court reporters usually redact.
Why it matters: a machine transcript is a draft until a person has checked it — especially when two languages are mixed.
Quebec: the language of official documents before the Superior Court
On September 16, 2026, Justice Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court ordered Élections Québec to mail its voter reminder cards in both French and English, on an application by Geoffrey Chambers, a Westmount resident and former advocate for the rights of English-speaking Quebecers. The judge found a risk of serious and irreparable harm to citizens who do not understand French, including seniors without internet access.
Why it matters: in Quebec, the language of public documents remains a question the courts decide case by case.
What we take from it
The same tension everywhere: fewer reporters, more recordings, and the temptation to let a machine produce the record. Recording is good news: it preserves the evidence. But the transcript an appeal court will read still has to be checked by someone who understands what was said, in both languages. That is our job.
Sources
- CalMatters, “Californians can now get their hearings recorded even if a court reporter isn’t there” (Aug. 2026)
- GovTech, “N.D. State Committee Sets Stage for AI Court Transcriptions”
- Le Droit, “Élections Québec devra envoyer ses documents en français et en anglais” (Sept. 16, 2026, in French)
- Le Devoir, “Les cartes de rappel du vote doivent aussi être envoyées en anglais” (in French)
General information, not legal advice. Rules change and differ from one forum to the next: check the current text and what your forum requires.
A recording or a proceeding in French, English or both? Send us the proceeding, the languages and the deadline.
Submit a proceeding →