B.C. Court of Appeal decides procedural issue, bringing 1994 Mr. Big case closer to appeal

Law360 Canada (January 29, 2026, 12:58 PM EST) --

John L. Hill

A Newfoundland carpet cleaner convicted of murdering his girlfriend in a 1994 shooting death in Richmond, B.C., is one step closer to having his conviction overturned after the British Columbia Court of Appeal outlined procedural issues that must be resolved before a new appeal can proceed (R. v. Skiffington, 2026 BCCA 26).

William Wade Skiffington was convicted of killing his common law partner, Wanda Martin, largely on admissions he made during a police “Mr. Big” undercover operation on Feb. 8, 2000. Mr. Big operations are undercover schemes in which police officers pose as fictitious criminals, befriend and entice targeted suspects into criminal activity, and tell them they must admit their past offences to the head of the criminal organization (Mr. Big) to establish trust.

It was primarily based on the Mr. Big confession that Skiffington was found guilty of second-degree murder in 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 13 years. There was no direct physical evidence linking him to the crime scene, and the murder weapon was never found.

Despite the taped confession, Skiffington maintained his innocence and appealed his conviction in 2004. His lawyers argued that he was pressured into confessing by undercover officers and by the promise of wealth. The appeal was dismissed by the B.C. Supreme Court. He then tried to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 but was denied.

The case of R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52 fundamentally changed the law by making Mr. Big confessions presumptively inadmissible unless the Crown can prove threshold reliability and the absence of abuse of process.

In 2019, a media release from Innocence Canada described the police investigation into Skiffington’s case as a “classic case of tunnel-vision, a known cause of wrongful convictions.” The release stated, “Police failed to pursue alternative suspects and rudimentary avenues of investigation that may well have resulted in the apprehension of the person who killed Wanda Martin.”

Following a ministerial review under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice referred the case back to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for a new appeal. The minister did not order a new trial, an option available to him under s. 696.3(3)(a)(i). Instead, he invoked s. 696.3(3)(a)(ii) and granted Skiffington an appeal. Skiffington has served about 17 years in custody and is currently on bail pending appeal.

Before the appeal could be heard on its merits, both parties filed preliminary applications to admit fresh evidence. Skiffington seeks to introduce evidence of Crown non-disclosure at trial, new forensic testing conducted after the ministerial referral, and evidence relating to the Mr. Big operation and its impact on him. The Crown also seeks to introduce fresh evidence in response to the non-disclosure allegations.

The court was asked to decide three threshold issues:

1. Whether the parties should be allowed to cross-examine affiants who have sworn fresh-evidence affidavits.

2. Whether four police officers who did not swear affidavits should be compelled to appear for cross-examination.

3. How, if admitted, Skiffington’s own affidavit may be used in the appeal.

The court ruled that:

• Both parties are entitled to cross-examine the fresh-evidence affiants.
• The non-affiant police officers should be directed to attend for cross-examination.
• If Skiffington’s affidavit is admitted, it cannot be used as evidence of factual innocence, wrongful conviction or to prove that police conduct in the Mr. Big operation amounted to an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that these rulings do not determine whether the fresh evidence is admissible or whether Skiffington’s conviction should be overturned. Those questions, including challenges based on non-disclosure, new forensic evidence and the application of Hart to the Mr. Big admissions, will be decided when the appeal is heard on its merits.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.