Third, the Crown points to the admission made by the
appellant to the Buchanans that he told the Toronto Three where
Mr. Swan lived. The Crown submits that in the absence of any
threats, this admission corroborates the hearsay statements.
 Finally, the Crown submits that although the trial judge
did not rely on the cellphone evidence, it is also corroborative of
the statements. That evidence suggested that the appellant could
have been near Mr. Swan’s home, rather than at his own home,
shortly before the home invasion and is inconsistent with the
appellant’s story about being threatened.
 I accept that the Crown raises a number of pieces of
evidence that are supportive of the veracity of the material parts
of the hearsay statements. The issue is whether this evidence
rules out the alternative explanations, such that the only
remaining likely explanation for the statements is the declarants’ truthfulness about the material aspects of them. In short, can
we be satisfied, based on this evidence, that cross-examination
 In my view, the Crown has not met the test for the admission of the hearsay statements as articulated by the Supreme
Court in Bradshaw. For example, the evidence regarding the
clothing does not remove alternative scenarios regarding its
source. In his statement, Mr. Mullen pointed to the appellant as
the supplier of the masks used in the robbery, while Mr. McLellan
testified at his trial that he was the one who supplied the masks.
Moreover, there is no independent evidence to support the theory
that the appellant supplied the clothing.
 The evidence of the communications between the appellant and Mr. Barnett after the home invasion could be interpreted
as demonstrating a lack of concern on the part of the appellant.
However, the text messages were exchanged after the home invasion when the imminent threat to the appellant had dissipated.
The fact that the appellant’s brother did not observe any threatening behaviour could be because of his location in the home that
evening. Further, the appellant may not have told his brother
about the threats for a number of reasons, including concerns
about his family’s safety.
 The intercepted phone calls capture the appellant discussing his response to police inquiries regarding his interactions with the Toronto Three the evening of the home invasion.
This evidence appears to show the appellant trying to create an
alternative scenario to the one he told the Buchanans. That
could be because, as suggested by the Crown, his mother or
brother told him that the threatening story would not withstand
scrutiny. However, it could also be that he was looking for