At trial, the appellant pursued the objective he sought.
However, it was quickly abandoned when Crown counsel drew
the trial judge’s attention to the decision of the Alberta Court
of Appeal in R. v. Waite,  A.J. No. 740, 2013 ABCA 257,
309 C.C.C. (3d) 255, affd S.C.C., supra. Trial counsel did not
attempt to qualify the statement as admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule nor invited the trial judge
to exercise his discretion to admit the evidence to prevent
a miscarriage of justice.
 Setting to one side trial counsel’s failure to pursue the
admissibility issue at trial and in the absence of any claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, I am unable to find any support
for the proposed use of this evidence through the principled
exception to the hearsay rule.
 To begin, the “exculpatory” evidence upon which the
appellant sought to rely was not simply hearsay, but double hearsay. Thus, to gain its admission, the appellant was bound to show,
if he could, a basis upon which each level of hearsay could be
admitted. This he did not try to do, nor could he have succeeded
in doing so.
 Implicit in the appellant’s submission seems to be a claim
for the admissibility of only the “exculpatory” part of the out-of-court statement. No authority was cited for this proposition
which is of questionable validity. As with any out-of-court statement, a proponent is not entitled to pick and to choose among its
constituent parts. He or she takes the good with the bad.
 Assuming that the necessity requirement in the principled approach to hearsay had been met because Heang was not
a compellable witness at the appellant’s request, the proposed
evidence would not seem capable of satisfying the requirements
of either procedural or substantive reliability.
 Common to both procedural and substantive reliability
inquiries is the fundamental nature of this evidence as largely, if
not entirely, double hearsay. As we saw from Bradshaw, procedural reliability usually requires some form of cross-examination
of the declarant. No such prospect exists here. Although the
statement was video recorded, it was not taken under oath nor
was there any meaningful warning given about the consequences
of lying. Such surrogates as there are for the usual means of testing evidence — like personal presence, oath and contemporaneous cross-examination — do not provide a satisfactory basis for
the trier of fact to rationally evaluate the truth and accuracy of
 Nor can it be said that the high standard for substantive
reliability has been met. Substantive reliability is established