In Ontario, Zoom hearings not being heard
Court transcriptionists are struggling with ‘horrible’ audio quality
“Are we able to do anything about the feedback,” asks a defence lawyer at the start of the virtual bail review hearing last month.
The participants try muting themselves, but the garbled background sound — as if the speakers are caught in an electronic windstorm — remains. When the accused gets on the line from jail, it’s even worse. She appears to be speaking via a glitchy drive-thru speaker at the bottom of a well. Whole sentences can barely be made out. The transcript, based on an audio recording of the court hearing, looks like this:
THE COURT: This prescription that (the accused) was on, can you help me to understand what is (indecipherable) directed at, was it directed at anger, or was it directed at depression, or (indecipherable).
THE WITNESS: It was... THE COURT: (indecipherable).
THE WITNESS: Sorry. THE COURT: Sorry, go ahead, ma’am.
THE WITNESS: It was directed at a (indecipherable). THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful.
THE DEFENCE LAWYER: Yes, Your Honour, just — just because it’s (indecipherable) this time. As far as I know (the accused) never had a formal diagnosis beyond (indecipherable) of society.
Over 24 minutes, the term “indecipherable” is used 44 times in the transcript, sometimes in place of single words, sometimes standing in for a stretch as long as 15 seconds. This is one of four official court audio recordings heard by the Star in which it is extremely hard or impossible to make out what’s being said for parts of the hearing, which include legal submissions in a case involving allegations of child abuse.
Transcriptionists in Ontario have dozens more examples from family, civil and criminal court — cases involving serious charges and sensitive testimony.
Parsing audio marred by feedback, echoes, unmuted microphones, fire alarms, construction noise, typing and voices that all sound the same is hard on the ears and the brain. It also takes much longer — which translates into less pay because transcriptionists are paid by the page, not by the hour.
There is no doubt Zoom and remote teleconferencing have saved the courts during the pandemic. It took a monumental effort for Ontario’s archaic system to go virtual, allowing crucial hearings to resume by the summer and into the second wave — but among the growing pains that remain is a growing pain in the ears of court transcriptionists.
“The quality of the recording is horrible,” said one, about a recent civil motion held via Zoom video conference, in a comment in a closed Facebook group. “The ‘talking through a tin can’ reverberation is mindnumbing. It took me 2.5 hours to do 10 pages in draft, representing 13 minutes in court time.” (The Star is not naming the transcriptionists who are concerned they will lose work or be reprimanded for speaking publicly.)
Another shared a photo of damaged noise-cancelling headphones: “I actually just mended (them) with electrical tape because the inside was cracked. I am pretty sure my frustration throwing them off my head has been the cause.”
But most concerning of all is what can happen if there’s no viable transcript from a hearing — these are, after all, the official court records of a case.
It would make filing an appeal near impossible. Cases have been ordered for retrials on those grounds before, said Daniel Brown, vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.
“If we don’t have an accurate record of what was said in court, how can any court assess where there is an issue,” he said. “This should be a huge concern for everyone in the justice system. It doesn’t just relate to wrongful convictions but also wrongful acquittals. Either side may choose to challenge a judge’s ruling, and that could be almost impossible given the state of some of this audio.”
Susan Porter, a veteran authorized court transcriptionist, has been sounding the alarm to the Ministry of the Attorney General on this for months, at one point writing a detailed memo about her concerns.
The problem, she explains, has arisen in part due to virtual hearings that take place by phone or Zoom.
When these happen in a normal courtroom, each speaker from the judge to the witness to the lawyers has their own microphone with their own audio channel. So if it’s hard to hear something, the transcriptionist can isolate a channel or see if another microphone picked it up.
It is also easier to tell who’s speaking, especially if voices sound the same.
With Zoom, that multi-channel recording doesn’t exist — all the audio comes from one source.
Virtual hearings also create more opportunities for muffled voices, feedback or background noise. “We don’t have magical ears,” Porter said.
One transcriptionist described the sound as if a sock is over a microphone, inside a tin can at the bottom of an aquarium.
Porter believes the audio problems could be fixed if more care is taken to ensure the recording quality is usable, or changes are made to the way recordings are currently taken.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General said they are “aware that some audio quality issues have been raised in some cases where the record was taken using recording mechanisms other than on the digital recording device (or “DRD”) or where courtroom etiquette has not been observed in the virtual setting.”
Court staff has been provided with training and resources, spokesperson Brian Gray said.
“The ministry is committed to taking high-quality court audio recordings and has been reviewing the processes put in place during the pandemic for taking the record during remote proceedings in order to ensure standards are met.”
But Porter said complaints are still coming in.
“This needs to be fixed,” she said. “Someone’s life could be on the line.”