An article posted in Canadian Lawyer references “a stenographer’s benefits claim,” though the BCSRA has its doubts that the person in question is a stenographer. The BCSRA submitted the following letter to the editors and author late April 2023:
Dear Angelica & Editors,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to bring your attention to an error in an article referencing a “stenographer‘s benefit claim.” The article cites Bird v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2023 BCSC 543 (CanLII), which also makes the same error.
I would like to clarify that Ms. Bird’s occupation would be better described as a transcriptionist rather than a stenographer. A stenographer is trained in machine shorthand and uses a chorded machine to write at speeds of up to 225+ words per minute at over 95% accuracy. On the other hand, a transcriptionist’s role involves transcribing audio recordings. While stenographers may work as transcriptionists, court reporters, CART captioners, and broadcast captioners, not all individuals in these roles are stenographers.
As noted in paragraph 7 of the CanLII decision, Ms. Bird’s duties included “sitting at a keyboard throughout the day and transcribing audio recordings 95 percent of the time, typing 90 words per minute.” The article’s reference to Ms. Bird as a stenographer appears to be incorrect for the following reasons:
- A stenographer writes using machine shorthand on a steno machine rather than typing on a keyboard.
- 90 words per minute is a relatively low speed for a stenographer.
I hope this clarification is helpful, and I would respectfully request a correction for said article. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.Liz Royal
President
British Columbia Shorthand Reporters Association
