wear and agreed with the police’s suggestion that the appellant
had shown them Mr. Swan’s house.
 On November 16, 2010, the police re-interviewed Mr. McLellan. When Mr. McLellan was told that the appellant had alleged
that he had put a gun to the appellant’s head, Mr. McLellan made
a statement implicating the appellant in the robbery plot.
Mr. McLellan told the police that he met the appellant at
Mr. Barnett’s house over the 2009 Christmas holidays and that
the appellant told them that he knew “a guy that has lots of weed
and money” and suggested that “you guys can rob him”. He further advised that two months later on February 21, 2010,
Mr. Barnett contacted him saying, “tonight’s the night”. He
agreed with an officer’s suggestion that the appellant had shown
them Mr. Swan’s house that evening. In addition, Mr. McLellan
said that the appellant had given them clothes to wear during
 At his October 2013 trial, Mr. McLellan testified in his own
defence. He admitted to being the shooter. However, he claimed
that the gun had gone off accidently. Mr. McLellan implicated
the appellant in the robbery plot, but his testimony was not
entirely consistent in this regard with his November 2010 police
 At the appellant’s trial, the Crown attempted to call
Messrs. McLellan and Mullen as witnesses. They both refused to
testify. The Crown brought an application to admit Mr. Mullen’s
September 2010 police statement, along with Mr. McLellan’s
November 2010 police statement and October 2013 trial
testimony, all for the truth of their contents. The trial judge ruled
that the police statements could be admitted but refused to admit
Mr. McLellan’s trial testimony.
 Following the appellant’s conviction for manslaughter, but
before his sentencing, the Supreme Court of Canada released
its decision in R. v. Jordan,  1 S.C.R. 631,  S.C.J. No.
27, 2016 SCC 27. The appellant then brought a s. 11(b) Charter
application, which was dismissed by the trial judge.
 This appeal raises four issues:
(1) Did the trial judge err in admitting the hearsay statements?
(2) If the answer to issue 1 is yes, is this an appropriate case for
the use of the curative proviso in s. 686(b)( iii) of the Criminal
Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46?