Your Records and the Recording of Your Hearings: You Have the Right — Here’s How to Get Them

The recording of your hearing, the police report from your arrest, your medical file, the file built on your complaint to the Bar’s syndic: almost everything that concerns you is archived somewhere — and, in most cases, you have the right to obtain a copy. What’s missing is simply knowing that the right exists, and where to knock.

There’s a sentence that comes up, almost word for word, in the testimonies we receive: « That’s not what the judge said. » Or: « The minutes don’t match what actually happened in the courtroom. » The citizen has a precise memory of a hearing; the official document keeps only a short, smoothed-over, sometimes unrecognizable version of it. And because the citizen has no idea they can check, they stay silent. They absorb it. They end up doubting their own memory.

That’s the heart of the problem — and also the good news: that memory doesn’t have to be defended alone. It was recorded. It is archived. It is waiting at the courthouse registry.

I — The minutes

A summary is not a word-for-word record

Let’s name a confusion the system keeps alive through its silence. The minutes of a hearing are not a transcript of what was said. They are a summary: who was present, what exhibits were filed, what decisions were rendered, a few notations. They record that something happened; they don’t say how, in what words, or in what tone. Between « the witness was heard » and what the witness actually declared lies a chasm — and it is in that chasm that the words a citizen would swear they heard disappear.

What few people know is that the courtrooms of the Court of Québec and the Superior Court are recorded digitally. Every word is captured. The minutes are the administrative summary; the recording is the complete trace. And that recording, you can request a copy of it.

II — Reproduction of hearings

The form the registry counter doesn’t advertise

The process has a technical name — the « reproduction of judicial hearings » — and a form number: SJ-021A (SJ-021 in French). You fill it out and hand it to the Transcription Service of the courthouse that holds the file. The same form opens three doors, and it’s worth telling them apart, because their price and their usefulness have nothing in common.

First, the audio copy (the « repiquage »): a copy of the hearing’s sound, burned to CD. It’s the raw truth — the voice of the judge, of the lawyers, of the witnesses, exactly as they sounded in the room. It’s also, by far, the cheapest option. Second, the transcript: the written text, word for word, certified by an official court reporter. This is the document that carries legal weight before the courts, but it’s billed by the page and the cost climbs fast. Finally, a data CD, a digital variant of the file.

For a citizen who simply wants to hear with their own ears what was said, the audio copy is the ideal tool: a few dozen dollars rather than a few hundred. The fees are estimated by the registry according to the volume of the file, set by a provincial tariff on transcription and reproduction. It isn’t free, but it’s light-years from the financial wall people imagine.

III — The master key

Access to information — the right people think is reserved for journalists

The reproduction of hearings is only one piece of a far larger toolkit. In Québec, the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information gives every person — not just lawyers, not just the media — the right to obtain documents held by a public body and the personal information that concerns them.

The mechanics are simple, and it’s precisely that simplicity that’s kept from you. The request is made in writing, addressed to the access-to-information officer of the body in question — every ministry, every city, every school, every health institution has one. You describe the document you’re after precisely enough for it to be found, you provide your contact details, and you include proof of identity if it concerns your own information. Consulting the documents on site is free; only copies may carry fees, and those must be estimated for you in advance.

And if you’re refused, in whole or in part, or if the deadline expires in silence? You have 30 days to ask the Commission d’accès à l’information (CAI) for a review — an administrative tribunal that can order the body to release the documents. Remember this: a refusal is not the end of the road. It’s the start of a remedy. But note — only a request made in writing opens that right of review. The answer to a request made verbally cannot be reviewed.

IV — Everywhere at once

Your file doesn’t sit in a single drawer

Once you understand the principle, you see it apply everywhere. Here’s where to knock, depending on what you’re looking for.

The police. Incident report, summary or recording of a 911 call, statement, breathalyzer result: every police force has its access officer. In Québec City, the Service de police de la Ville de Québec handles these requests (accesinformation@spvq.quebec, 418 641-6411 ext. 5593). In Montréal, the SPVM has its own form. Elsewhere, the Sûreté du Québec or the relevant municipal force. In every case, you generally have to be involved in the event, provide ID, and give as much detail as possible (date, place, event number if you have it). Modest fees apply. An accident report is requested from the SAAQ; a death under investigation falls to the Coroner’s Office.

Health. The notes professionals record about you belong to you. You have the right to consult and correct your medical file, by writing to the Medical Records Service of the institution. Consulting it on site is free — the institution has no right to charge you for that. Anyone 14 and older has access to their own file. A refusal can be challenged, again, before the CAI.

Professional orders. The Barreau du Québec (the Québec Bar), like any body subject to the Access Act, has an access-to-information officer — whose contact details appear on the « Access to information » page at barreau.qc.ca — and must respond within 20 days. Notably, it’s the Office of the Syndic that handles access requests for the documents it holds — a detail that matters when you’re trying to understand how a complaint was processed.

And the rest. Municipalities, ministries, school service centres, health authorities, Crown corporations: the same right, the same procedure, the same 20-day deadline, the same recourse to the CAI. Once you hold the key, every door opens the same way.

V — What you can do with it

Obtaining is not broadcasting: the line not to cross

We have to be precise here, because this is where enthusiasm can hurt you. The right to obtain the recording of your hearing is clear. The right to do whatever you want with it is not. These are two different things, and confusing them can expose you to very real trouble.

What you can do with the audio copy is already considerable. Use it in your own case. Ask that the minutes be corrected when they don’t match. Support an appeal. Back up a complaint to police ethics, to the syndic, or a request to the CAI. Or simply verify what was said, so you stop doubting your memory. The recording then becomes a weapon in your remedies — often the strongest one you have.

What you cannot do, on the other hand, is publish it freely online as though it were a document with no consequences. The public broadcasting of a hearing recording is prohibited; even the media, who may sometimes record proceedings to verify their notes, are not allowed to broadcast them. And — this is the key point — that prohibition attaches to the content of the proceedings themselves, not to how you obtained the recording. Whether the audio comes from your own capture or from the official copy sold to you by the registry, broadcasting it publicly requires judicial authorization. The fact that a hearing was public, and not held behind closed doors, does not change this.

This isn’t theoretical. The Superior Court has already granted an injunction against an individual who had filmed a Court of Appeal hearing and broadcast it on Facebook — and he had argued, precisely, that the hearing was public. Add to that the possible invasion of privacy of the other people heard and, for certain matters — family, youth protection — an outright publication ban. In short: use it to assert your rights, not to improvise a public broadcast. The difference between the two is sometimes the difference between winning your case and creating a new one. (You remain free, of course, to report, describe, and quote what was said — it’s the raw audio or video that can’t be rebroadcast without authorization.)

VI — Your scribe

Let artificial intelligence write your request for you

That leaves the obstacle the system counts on you not to clear: the fear of the blank page. Drafting an access request « properly » is intimidating. This is exactly where a tool like Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini becomes an equalizer. You describe your situation in plain language; it hands you a clear letter, in the right tone, citing the right law. Here are examples you can copy and adapt.

For an access-to-information request: « Draft an access-to-information request addressed to the access officer of [organization]. I want to obtain [specific document — e.g., all emails concerning me between date X and date Y]. Cite the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies, request a response within the legal 20-day deadline, and note my right to a review before the Commission d’accès à l’information if refused. »

For a reproduction of hearings: « Help me fill out an application for the reproduction of judicial hearings (form SJ-021A). I want the audio copy of the hearing held on [date] in file number [number] at the courthouse in [city]. Explain who to hand the form to and what fees to expect. »

For a medical file: « Draft a written request to the Medical Records Service of [institution] to obtain a copy of my complete medical file for the period [dates]. Set out my right of access and of correction. »

In two minutes, the process that seemed reserved for insiders fits into an email. Perhaps that’s the real shift: not new rights, but the end of the excuse that they’re too complicated to exercise.

Trust in institutions isn’t rebuilt through programs designed behind closed doors. It’s rebuilt one citizen at a time, the day they discover they weren’t powerless — that a piece of information was missing, and they’ve just found it. Share this guide. Someone around you has been waiting a long time to hear what was really said.