Statements Against Interest Exception
The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidnece at trial by the opposing party".
Statements by Accused
A statement made by the accused is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule where the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.
Where a statement fits into the category of admission against interest, it becomes preemptively admissible.
There is some debate on whether an admission by the accused is hearsay at all.
These statements can be admitted without analysis of necessity and reliability.
Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.
Statements by a Third Party
A statement can only be binding against the party who made them. Thus, a out-of-court statement can only be admissible in a trial against the person who made them.
A statement of a third party admitting to the murder cannot be used in the murder trial of another person. The defence would have to call that third party as a witness.
Statements by Co-Accused
Out-of-Court statements made by the co-accused are hearsay and cannot be used as corroborative evidence at trial of the accused. Should the evidence be accepted as against the co-accused, limiting instructions are required to prevent its use against the accused.
Statements made by an agent of an organization that is within his scope of authority to a third person is admissible against their interests where the statement is part of a communciation which the agent is authorized to have with the third party.
R v Violette, 2008 BCSC 422 (CanLII),  BCJ No 2781 at paras 63 to 65 - in context of Wiretaps
R v Terry, 1996 CanLII 199 (SCC),  2 SCR 207 at para 28, per McLachlin J. (“an admission against interest made by the accused is admissible as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, provided that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.”)
R v Ciancio, 2007 BCSC 777 (CanLII) at para 24 citing Sopinka on Evidence
e.g. R v Evans, 1993 CanLII 86 (SCC),  3 SCR 653 per Sopinka J. at para 24
R v Ciancio, supra at paras 15 to 36
R v Foreman, 2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA), (2002), 169 CCC (3d) 489 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 502
- R v R.R.W. (No. 2), 2010 NLTD 137 (CanLII)
R v Abu-Sharife, 2006 BCSC 902 (CanLII) at para 29
- R v Yu, 2000 BCCA 626 (CanLII)
R v Rhyno, 2011 NSCA 78 (CanLII) at para 5
Rhyno, ibid. at para 7
R v Ward at paras 32-38
R v Strand Electric Ltd,  1 OR 1990, 1968 CanLII 421 (ON CA), OJ 1291 (ONCA)
R v Petro Canada, 2007 ONCJ 669(*no CanLII links)
R v Dana Canada Corp., 2008 ONCJ 644 (CanLII),  OJ 4487 (ONCJ)
R v Syncrude, 2010 ABPC 123 (CanLII)