Hearsay evidence is evidence that is given by a witness, of which the witness does not have direct knowledge, in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Generally speaking, hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial, unless the hearsay evidence can fall within an exception to the general rule against hearsay. Such exceptions must still conform to the principles of necessity and reliability. If the evidence is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge may still refuse to admit it if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Further, where evidence is inadmissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, the judge may admit it nonetheless, provided that necessity and reliability are established.
In Nerval v Khehra, the Plaintiff made a statement to the police after the accident. At trial, the Plaintiff testified as to how the accident occurred, and also wished to introduce the statement she had made to the police. ICBC’S lawyer objected to the admission of the statement, and the Court agreed, ruling it to inadmissible.
 Ms. Nerval applied to tender her statement to Cst. Baskin because she could not recall the events surrounding the collisions. A voir dire was held. Cst. Baskin reported that Ms. Nerval had told him that she was making a left-hand turn to go westbound on Sandpiper. At the time there was a van facing southbound indicating a left turn and an intention to go eastbound on Sandpiper. She said she did not see any other motor vehicle coming towards her. She did not remember if she had her signal light on; there was no mention of a signal light in his notes. Ms. Nerval told him that the other van had its signal on. That is the totality of his conversation with Ms. Nerval.
 The defence opposed the admission of this statement into evidence on the basis that it fails to meet the requirement of necessity. The defence argues that to be admissible the statement must be used to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication, be a prior inconsistent statement, or be a statement contemporaneous with an event reported in the statement.
 I conclude that the statement is not admissible. The circumstances under which the statement was taken do not reflect that it was taken contemporaneously with the event. The evidence did not support the suggestion that it was a contemporaneous report. There was no suggestion that the statement was inconsistent with the evidence given by Ms. Nerval at the trial and no suggestion that the there was an allegation of recent fabrication of evidence.
 If I am wrong in my conclusions regarding the admissibility of the statement, I would otherwise have concluded that the statement did not contain any information that materially augmented the evidence of Ms. Nerval at trial.