Saving Court Reporting – Why Canada’s Loss Is America’s Opportunity to Help

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a decision that’s been widely criticized as shortsighted and damaging, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) has paused admissions to Canada’s only accredited Captioning and Court Reporting diploma program. This move, while perhaps appearing as a logistical or budgetary adjustment on the surface, poses an existential threat to the integrity of Canadian courts, accessibility services, and public media. It also offers the U.S. a rare opportunity to play a supportive role in preserving a profession vital to democracy and inclusion.

The NAIT program isn’t just another academic credential—it’s a rigorous, elite pipeline that trains the country’s most reliable human record-keepers. Students who are accepted often wait years for entry, only to spend two full years in intensive training, learning the art of real-time stenography: a skill that allows them to transcribe every word in fast-paced, overlapping conversations with near-perfect accuracy. Graduates earn the Certified Shorthand Reporter designation, a credential required for courtrooms, real-time TV captioning, and communication access for people with disabilities. Without this program, Canada has no domestic infrastructure to support the development of these professionals.

Why Court Reporting Matters

Imagine a murder trial where a key piece of testimony is muddled by cross-talk. Or a deaf patient attending a high-stakes consultation without real-time captioning. Or a government hearing where the transcript contains critical omissions. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They are real risks when trained stenographers are replaced with automated transcription tools, which routinely miss subtle speech nuances, misinterpret voices in noisy environments, and fail to request clarification when something is unclear.

Court reporters don’t just type—they verify, clarify, and deliver transcripts that hold legal weight. They are the responsible charge, the final authority over the accuracy of the record. They’re neutral, real-time arbiters of record, and their work underpins due process, journalistic integrity, and accessibility. The NAIT program’s suspension places this entire ecosystem at risk.

A Profession in Crisis

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association has called this situation a “national crisis” in terms of accessibility. This isn’t just a matter of curriculum—it affects real people every day: those who rely on accurate captions in medical settings, in classrooms, and in courtrooms. It’s being glossed over as a niche issue when it’s a foundational one.

NAIT’s stated reasons for pausing the program—such as insufficient international student enrollment—are particularly troubling. This career requires a strong grasp of the English language and the ability to transcribe with grammatical precision at extremely high speeds. It was never designed as a mass-market program, and to hold it to those metrics is to fundamentally misunderstand what it trains people to do.

Claims of low graduation rates also deserve context. Court reporting students graduate not on a fixed timeline, but when they reach 225 words per minute with 95 percent accuracy—a standard upheld for public safety and legal reliability. That takes time, and rightfully so. Despite the difficulty, the program has consistently maintained a waitlist.

And as for job security? Many graduates have jobs lined up before they even finish the program. Since 2007, I’ve worked in closed captioning, CART, legal proceedings, and more—because this career opens doors, not closes them.

Artificial intelligence is not capable of doing what we do. NAIT’s decision, led in part by Tamara Peyton, appears rash, poorly researched, and out of sync with the school’s responsibility to serve the public good.

The North American court reporting profession is already grappling with a looming crisis: a massive wave of retirements with no new generation ready to take over. In Canada, nearly half of the approximately 7,900 court reporters are over the age of 50. The situation is similarly dire in the U.S., where estimates suggest a shortage of more than 5,000 reporters in the coming years. Yet instead of doubling down on training and recruitment, NAIT’s pause effectively shutters the only pipeline for new professionals in Canada.

This is not just a Canadian problem—it’s a cross-border issue that invites American institutions, courts, and organizations to reflect on the importance of this craft and consider how to lend support.

What Is the NCRA Doing?

The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) is the professional body that accredits court reporting programs in North America. NAIT is the only Canadian institution that holds this prestigious accreditation. Losing this program would mean losing NCRA’s presence in Canada and a critical North American training partner.

Contrary to earlier impressions, the NCRA has taken formal action. On June 3, 2025, NCRA President Keith R. Lemons, FAPR, RPR, CRR (Ret.) sent a letter to NAIT President Laura Jo Gunter and Alberta Minister Myles McDougall, urging them to reconsider the decision to pause the Captioning and Court Reporting (CCR) program. In the letter, the NCRA emphasized that cancelling the program would worsen Canada’s shortage of court reporters and captioners—roles essential for justice and communication access, especially for the deaf and hard of hearing communities. They offered to collaborate with NAIT on hybrid or alternative delivery models to keep the program viable.

That same day, the NCRA received a supportive response from the office of Alberta Legislative Assembly member David Eggen, who confirmed that he had also contacted the Minister of Advanced Education to advocate for the program’s continuation.

While this advocacy effort was not widely publicized at first, it now stands as a meaningful step that reflects the NCRA’s recognition of the crisis and willingness to act.

Still, further engagement and visibility are needed. NAIT has not yet reversed its decision, and more robust, public-facing support remains critical to keeping this program alive.

How the NCRA Can Further Help

Here are five practical and impactful steps the NCRA can and should take to support NAIT and the profession:

1. Public Advocacy

The NCRA should release a formal statement urging NAIT to reinstate its court reporting program. They must frame this issue as a matter of justice, accessibility, and professional integrity. Engaging the public and policymakers in this conversation is essential to building pressure on institutional decision-makers.

2. Institutional Support

If NAIT is pausing the program due to budgetary or administrative constraints, the NCRA can offer direct support: sharing resources, providing teaching materials, and possibly co-developing online components to reduce overhead. A North American educational partnership could ease institutional burdens while keeping the program alive.

3. Student Pathways

Students currently enrolled or accepted into NAIT’s program are left stranded. The NCRA should facilitate transfer agreements with U.S. programs, offer scholarships or funding for displaced students, and clarify credentialing options so Canadian students can still enter the profession.

4. Economic Impact Studies

The NCRA can commission research on the cost of losing human stenographers in Canada—from legal liability and transcription errors to increased reliance on foreign or AI-based services. Data-backed arguments can strengthen advocacy efforts and demonstrate the program’s value beyond academia.

5. Cross-Border Collaboration

The NAIT crisis is an opportunity to deepen U.S.-Canada professional ties. The NCRA could lead in forming a Canadian Court Reporting Advocacy Task Force, offer joint conferences and training, and expand its international focus to ensure Canada remains a stakeholder in the profession.

How the U.S. Can Support

American institutions and professionals can also step up. This isn’t about taking Canadian jobs—it’s about reinforcing a vital profession across borders:

  • U.S. schools could open their programs to Canadian students virtually
  • Employers and government agencies can reinforce demand for human transcription
  • NCRA-accredited programs can help temporarily absorb displaced students
  • U.S. captioning and legal services can amplify the message: trained humans are irreplaceable

More Than Just Jobs—A Matter of Justice

This is not just about career training; it’s about democratic infrastructure. Without qualified human court reporters, the legal system becomes vulnerable to error, manipulation, and bias. Without live captioning, millions of people with hearing loss lose access to communication. Without CART providers, equitable access to education and healthcare vanishes.

NAIT’s decision strips away a vital support beam from Canada’s legal and media systems. But worse still, it sends a message that precision, accessibility, and truth aren’t worth investing in. That’s unacceptable.

A Call to Action

NAIT’s decision to suspend the only accredited stenography program in Canada overlooks a crucial truth: court reporters do more than work in courts. Many provide real-time captioning and transcription for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, serving in hospitals, classrooms, and beyond.

This is not a convenience issue. It’s a matter of basic human rights.

For nearly two decades, I’ve delivered weekly transcripts in scenarios with layered speech, thick regional accents, and fast-paced conversation—linguistic challenges that routinely stump AI. These skills can’t be replicated by machines. The program’s removal not only fails students, but fails the public.

NAIT is considering turning this rigorous, credentialed program into a non-credit course or cutting it entirely. Either option erodes a vital public service and leaves over 3 million Canadians who rely on captioning and CART services without future support.

🚨 Why this matters:

  • Certified captioners provide critical access in education, healthcare, government, and media
  • AI transcription tools still lack the nuance and reliability for high-stakes contexts
  • Eliminating this program means Canada loses its only training ground for skilled, human captioners

We cannot allow accessibility to be sidelined by short-term metrics or administrative miscalculations.

Take action now. Contact the following to voice your concerns:

Please also copy the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA National) in your correspondence.

Help protect our collective right to equitable communication.d inclusion.

NAIT must reinstate the Captioning and Court Reporting diploma. The NCRA must rise to meet this moment. And American professionals must lend their voices to protect a profession that safeguards justice and inclusion on both sides of the border.

If we let this program vanish without a fight, we trade accuracy for error, inclusion for exclusion, and a proud Canadian profession for outsourced guesswork. But if we act together—decisively and vocally—we can save more than a school. We can save the standard.

Let’s make sure the guardians of the record are not silenced. Because when they are, the truth is the first casualty.

DISCLOSURES

  • The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.
  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions. All views expressed are based on publicly available information, direct experience, or opinion. Nothing on this site is presented as legal or professional advice.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment