Shamoiey Akindejoye’s evidence
 Mr. Akindejoye’s account of the events evolved over time.
On June 19, 2012, shortly after he was shot, Mr. Akindejoye told
a police officer that he did not know who shot him. He told the
officer that “they were randoms” and that “it was dark”. The
next day, he again told police that he did not know who shot him.
He said that he had “never seen these guys before”, but that he
would find out who they were.
 In July 2012, Mr. Akindejoye gave a police statement
implicating Mr. Clark and the appellant in the shooting. He told
the police that he came close enough to the appellant to shake his
hand, which is when the appellant shot him.
 At the appellant’s preliminary inquiry on April 3, 2013,
Mr. Akindejoye gave contradictory testimony. On the one hand, he
testified that he did not recognize the shooter at the time, but had
learned from others in the neighbourhood that the appellant and
Mr. Clark were implicated in the shooting. He also agreed that he
was being truthful when he spoke to the police at the hospital,
and that he told them everything he knew at the time. On the
other hand, however, he testified that he had recognized the
appellant as the shooter at the time of the shooting.
 However, Mr. Akindejoye’s evidence at trial — unlike his
evidence at the preliminary inquiry — was unequivocal: the appellant was the shooter. He testified that his previous statements
were not true, and that he had known all along that the appellant
was the shooter. He testified that he had lied to the police because
he did not want to be a “rat”, and because he initially did not
want the appellant and Mr. Clark to go to jail. However, he said,
he had come to his senses and no longer wanted to protect individuals who had tried to kill him.
 Mr. Akindejoye’s June 19, 2012 statement to police and
portions of his testimony at the preliminary inquiry were admitted for the truth of their contents under B. (K.G.).
Marquis Clark’s evidence
 Mr. Clark’s evidence also evolved over time, though in the
opposite direction to Mr. Akindejoye’s. He initially gave statements consistent with the Crown’s theory. But, at the appellant’s
trial, he claimed that he was the shooter, and that the appellant
was not involved in any way.
 Mr. Clark gave three statements inculpating the appellant
as the shooter. On August 8, 2012, the day of his arrest, he gave
a video-taped statement to the police. He stated that he had lured