Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are two of the few jurisdictions that require the exchange of evidence summaries prior to trial. In 2003, the Committee of the Alberta Law Reform Institute,
Alberta Rules of Court Project
, considered recommending the use of evidence summaries. The Committee reviewed the use of evidence summaries in foreign jurisdictions and noted that in some instances evidence summaries actually replace oral evidence in chief, thereby expediting the trial process. In considering the use of evidence summaries in the Northwest Territories, the Committee noted that they do not replace oral evidence and that if they were not provided or did not fairly represent the evidence given by the witnesses, the opposing side might be granted an adjournment of the trial. The Committee recommended incorporating a practice similar to that of the Northwest Territories. In doing so, the Committee noted that the purpose in exchanging evidence summaries is to preve
nt “ambush” at trial
 Pursuant to the
, an evidence summary must be signed by the witness and acknowledged as being true. In
Nunavut (Director of Child and Family Services)
S.Q and L.K.
, 2013 NUCJ 5, 2013 NUCJ 05 (CanLii), the court found that evidence summaries that were contained in a trial brief rather than as stand-alone documents verified to be true by the witness did not comply with Rule 326. This suggests that verification by the witness is an important aspect of evidence summaries.
Alberta Law Reform Institute, “Discovery and Evidence issues: Commission Evidence, Admissions, Pierringer Agreements and Innovative Procedures”
Alberta Rules of Court Project, Consultation Memorandum No. 12.7
(July 2003), online: University of Alberta <http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/docs/cm12-7.pdf>.