What is the current state of the law on the interpretation of evidence section 356 of the Alberta Evidence Code?

"Evidence Code section 356 provides, in relevant part, that '[w]here part of [a] . . . conversation . . . is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; . . . when a . . . conversation . . . is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.' 'The purpose of Evidence Code section 356 is to avoid creating a misleading impression. [Citation.] It applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matters may be excluded.' [Citations.]" (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1324.) We review the trial court's ruling under Evidence Code section 356 for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 274.)