View source for Statements Against Interest Exception

[[fr:Exception_relative_aux_déclarations_contre_les_intérêts]]
{{Currency2|January|2016}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderHearsay}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay}}
The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidence at trial by the opposing party."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Violette|25xs9|2008 BCSC 422 (CanLII)|[2008] BCJ No 2781}}{{perBCSC|Romilly J}}{{atsL|25xs9|63| to 65}} - in context of [[Wiretaps]]<br>
</ref>

; 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Terry|1fr9t|1996 CanLII 199 (SCC)|[1996] 2 SCR 207}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atL|1fr9t|28}} (“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.”)<br>
</ref>

Where a statement fits into the category of admission against interest, it becomes preemptively admissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Ciancio|1rp5c|2007 BCSC 777 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Singh J}}{{atL|1rp5c|24}} citing Sopinka on Evidence<br>
</ref>

There is some debate on whether an admission by the accused is hearsay at all.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Evans|1frzq|1993 CanLII 86 (SCC)|[1993] 3 SCR 653}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1frzq|24}}<br>
{{supra1|Ciancio}}{{atsL|1rp5c|15| to 36}}<br>
</ref>

These statements can be admitted without analysis of necessity and reliability.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Foreman|1chv3|2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA)|169 CCC (3d) 489}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atp|502}}<br>
</ref>

Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|RRW (No. 2)|2c840|2010 NLTD 137 (CanLII)}}{{perNLSC|Goodridge J}}
</ref>

; 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Abu-Sharife|1nm3g|2006 BCSC 902 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC| Shabbits J}}{{atL|1nm3g|29}}<br>
</ref>

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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Yu|1fncf|2000 BCCA 626 (CanLII)|150 CCC (3d) 217}}{{perBCCA| Mackenzie JA}}
</ref>

A third-party statement is inadmissible against the accused regardless of whether it is inculpatory or exculpatory.<ref>
see, R. v. Parberry (2005), 2005 CanLII 40137 (ON CA) , 202 C.C.C. (3d) 337 (Ont. C.A.)<br>
R. v. C. (B.) (1993), 1993 CanLII 8564
</ref>

; 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Rhyno|g11kf|2011 NSCA 120 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtNSCA}}{{atL|g11kf|5}}<br>
</ref>
Should the evidence be accepted as against the co-accused, limiting instructions are required to prevent its use against the accused.<ref>
{{ibid1|Rhyno}}{{atL|g11kf|7}}<br>
{{supra1|Ward}}{{ats|32-38}}<br>
</ref>

; Corporate 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Strand Electric Ltd|g15sq|1968 CanLII 421 (ON CA)|, [1969] 1 OR 1990, OJ 1291 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Petro Canada|23b6m|2009 ONCJ 179 (CanLII)|82 WCB (2d) 729}}{{perONCJ|Manno J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dana Canada Corp|21tdc|2008 ONCJ 644 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ 4487 (ONCJ)}}{{perONCJ|D Harris J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Syncrude|29c6j|2010 ABPC 123 (CanLII)|491 AR 270}}{{perABPC| Tjosvold J}}<Br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}