from the declarant. This of course occurs in the joint trial of
several accused, each of whom is a competent but not a compellable witness at the instance of any other accused: see generally
R. v. Hawkins (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 641,  3 S.C.R. 1043,
 S.C.J. No. 117, at paras. 71-73. Indeed, unavailability and
thus necessity can be established even where the declarant is
not unavailable in the strict physical sense: Hawkins, para. 71;
R. v. B. (K.G.),  1 S.C.R. 740,  S.C.J. No. 22, at pp.
797-98 S.C.R.; R. v. Devine,  2 S.C.R. 283,  S.C.J.
No. 36, 2008 SCC 36, at para. 16.
 The reliability requirement may be established in either
or both of two ways.
 Procedural reliability is established when there are
adequate safeguards for testing the evidence despite the fact that
the declarant has not given the evidence in court, under oath or
its equivalent and under the scrutiny of contemporaneous cross-examination: R. v. Khelawon,  2 S.C.R. 787,  S.C.J.
No. 57, 2006 SCC 57, at para. 63. These substitutes must
provide a satisfactory basis for the trier of fact to rationally
evaluate the truth and accuracy of the hearsay statement:
Khelawon, at para. 76; Hawkins, at para. 75. Among the substitutes for traditional safeguards are video recording the statement, administration of an oath and warning the declarant
about the consequences of lying: B. (K.G.), pp. 795-96 S.C.R.
However, some form of cross-examination, as for example
of a recanting witness at trial, is usually required: R. v.
Bradshaw,  1 S.C.R. 865,  S.C.J. No. 35, 2017 SCC
35, at para. 28; R. v. Couture,  2 S.C.R. 517,  S.C.J.
No. 28, 2007 SCC 28, at paras. 92-95.
 Substantive reliability is established where the hearsay
statement is inherently trustworthy. To determine whether the
statement is inherently trustworthy, a trial judge considers the
circumstances in which the statement was made and any
evidence that corroborates or conflicts with the statement:
Bradshaw, at para. 30. The standard for substantive reliability
is high: the judge must be satisfied that the statement is so
reliable that contemporaneous cross-examination on it would
add little if anything to the process: Khelawon, at paras. 49,
62, 107; Bradshaw, at para. 31.
 Procedural and substantive reliability are not mutually
exclusive. They may work in tandem in that elements of both can
combine to overcome the specific hearsay dangers a statement
might present even where each, on its own, would be insufficient
to establish reliability: R. v. Fredericks,  N.B.J. No. 211,