One record,
two jurisdictions.
A Canadian witness examined for a U.S. matter. A U.S. party filing in Quebec. Parallel proceedings on both sides of the line. One sitting, two sets of conventions, one record.
Both languages as spoken, one pass, to whichever set of conventions the matter requires. No second transcription. No reformatting after the fact.
- Both frameworks, one sittingSuperior Court conventions and AAERT deposition practice produced from the same audio — delivered together where counsel needs both.
- The words, not a renderingIn Quebec both languages are the record and no interpreter is needed. Where a forum does require one, the interpretation stays — and what was actually said stays with it.
- Pagination that holdsCite it once. Line and page references do not move under your pleadings later.
A Montréal deponent examined for a U.S. matter. A U.S. party filing in Quebec. One transcript, two procedural frameworks.
One schedule. One point of failure, not four.
The two formats diverge
Quebec follows Superior Court conventions; U.S. depositions follow AAERT practice with its own objection notation and exhibit marking. A transcript built for one is reformatted for the other, and pagination shifts underneath the citations.
Attestation does not travel
The form of attestation that satisfies a Quebec filing is not the form a U.S. filing expects, and neither travels across the border on its own. Which one a transcript needs is decided by where it is going — and that has to be settled at intake, not at filing.
The delay compounds
Interpretation, transcription, translation, review. Four steps, four schedules, and every correction travels back through all of them.
One file in. One record out. Built for the forum it is going to.
Submit a cross-border file