Case Summary
Allan Woodhouse was in his teens when he left his home in Pinaymootang First Nation (formerly known as Fairford), over 200 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg, and moved to the city for work. English was his second language.1
In the summer of 1973, 40-year-old restaurant worker and father of two Ting Fong Chan was found beaten and stabbed to death in Winnipeg. A detective described the killing as “a bloody murder, a very vicious murder.”2 One witness recalled seeing several men near the crime scene, whom she believed to be Indigenous “because they had shoulder length hair and some were wearing headbands.”3 Another told police that “a lot of Indians [were] fighting and yelling” in that area; however, he later testified at trial that he was “not at all sure” on what date this occurred.4
Within days, the Winnipeg Police Service had focused on four young suspects—all Indigenous men: Allan Woodhouse, then only 17 years old; Brian Anderson, 18; Clarence Woodhouse, 21 (no relation); and Clarence’s brother Russell Woodhouse, 19.5 When they were arrested, police did not, nor would they ever, have any physical evidence connecting them to the crime.6 Nonetheless, four signed confessions were speedily obtained.7 Each confession was written in proficient English—a second language for all four men, none of whom spoke it fluently.8
During Anderson’s police interview, the detectives untruthfully claimed that witnesses had placed him at the crime scene and that the other suspects had already confessed and implicated him in the killing.9 Moreover, the police told him that the written confession he signed was merely a form to get back the property they had taken from him upon his arrest.10
Allan Woodhouse, who has always maintained his innocence, told the officers that he had been sleeping at home on the night that Chan was killed, and that other people living there could confirm his whereabouts. The police took no steps to investigate his alibi.11 Instead, Woodhouse and his co-defendants claimed, police threatened and assaulted them before they signed the supposed confessions.12 Woodhouse said that his “false confession . . . was beaten out of [him] by the police.”13 By 1978, the detectives who took Anderson’s confession had been accused of police brutality in another case.14 Decades later, the Crown would confirm that “the same Winnipeg police detective squad that obtained the confessions had [since] been accused of using violence and intimidation to produce manufactured statements in similar cases.”15
At the men’s trial, which was held in English, Woodhouse had to testify without an interpreter.16 Since there was no physical evidence linking Woodhouse or his three co-accused to the murder, the prosecution’s case rested on their written confessions. All four denied making these statements. They challenged the admissibility of their confessions on the basis that they were involuntary because the men had been subjected to police threats and violence.17 However, the trial judge decided that the prosecutor, George Dangerfield—who was also the prosecutor in the wrongful convictions of Thomas Sophonow, Frank Ostrowski, James Driskell, Kyle Unger, and Robert Sanderson —had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the confessions were obtained voluntarily.18 The trial judge reached this conclusion despite hearing evidence from a psychologist that Russell Woodhouse had a developmental disability that prevented him from speaking in sentences, casting doubt on his capacity to have given the confession attributed to him.19
In March 1974, after a 12-day trial, an all-white Winnipeg jury convicted Allan Woodhouse, Clarence Woodhouse, and Brian Anderson of second-degree murder, and Russell Woodhouse of manslaughter.20 Woodhouse was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 10 years.21
At one point in the proceedings, the trial judge stated that Canada was no longer “a jungle” because “[w]e are no longer taking land from wild people”—that is, Indigenous people such as the defendants.22 “This is our country,” he said.23
Following the trial, Dangerfield wrote a letter to the Winnipeg chief of police, praising the detectives “for the excellent way in which they gave their evidence in respect of the taking of the [written confessions]. Without the statements, this case would have been lost entirely.”24
In November 1974, the Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected appeals by the four men in a short seven-paragraph decision. It stated that the trial judge had properly required the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confessions were voluntary.25 The court also stressed that the jurors were free to reject the confessions as involuntary or otherwise unreliable, but it was clear from the guilty verdicts that they did not do so.26 Chief Justice Freedman concluded that: “upon a review of the evidence in its entirety[,] we are in agreement with the decision of the learned trial Judge to admit the confessions [into evidence] and with the conclusion of the jury that the confessions were truthful. The verdict of guilty accordingly must stand.”27 In 1975, Anderson sought, but was denied, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.28
Allan Woodhouse was granted parole in 1990, but ultimately served 23 years in prison as his parole was revoked on a number of occasions. He later told a reporter that “[t]he Parole Board never believed me that I was innocent.”29 Anderson, who was granted parole in 1987, had initially been denied parole because he maintained his innocence, and the Parole Board feared that he would try to prove his innocence by contacting witnesses if released.30
In 2020, Woodhouse made an application to the federal Minister of Justice, under s. 696 of the Criminal Code, for a new trial on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice.31 His lawyers argued that his conviction was the product of systemic racism.32 Anderson had made a similar “Section 696” application in 2019; Clarence Woodhouse would file his application in 2023.33 Clarence’s brother Russell, however, had died in 2011.34 Their sister, Linda Anderson, requested in 2023 that the Minister of Justice conduct a posthumous review of Russell Woodhouse’s conviction for manslaughter.35
On June 22, 2023, Minister of Justice David Lametti ordered a new trial for Woodhouse and Anderson because there was “a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.”[36] On July 18, 2023, Manitoba prosecutor Michelle Jules called no evidence at their new trial. She requested that the men be acquitted, stating that “[w]e owe them and their families an apology.”37 Jules told the court that their confessions had been “entirely manufactured”38 and that “[s]ystemic racism impacted the investigation, the prosecution and the adjudication of this case. There is no question that there is not credible or reliable evidence to proceed.”39 She further stated that this “case would not have proceeded today. It wouldn’t even come close. It fell well below the expected standards of 1974. . . . Our justice system failed. They were wrongfully convicted. For that I am sorry.”40
The presiding judge, Chief Justice Joyal, then addressed the two men, stating that he was “happy” to enter acquittals for Woodhouse and Anderson: “You are innocent. You deserve acquittals. I’m now happy to enter them. . . . Your stories are stories of courage and resilience.”41
He told them: “I’m happy to offer an apology on behalf of the institution and system that failed you.”42
One of the lawyers for both men, Jerome Kennedy, told the press that “[t]o hear the judge say you’re innocent and to apologize . . . that’s not something that a judge has to do.”43
The Manitoba Attorney General issued a contemporaneous press release, stating:
Fifty years ago, a miscarriage of justice took place in the conviction of Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse for the murder of Ting Fong Chan.
While nothing that can be said that will bring back the years of lost freedom or the time away from family and friends . . . I offer my heartfelt apologies to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Woodhouse and their families.
There has also been hardship caused by this wrongful conviction to the family of Ting Fong Chan, who have sought justice for their loved one and mourned his passing for five decades. This miscarriage of justice compounds the suffering of the Chan family as well, and as attorney general, I regret and recognize this hardship.44
Woodhouse told the court at his acquittal proceedings: “It’s unbelievable to be accused of something you didn’t do.”45 He stated that after his conviction, he shut himself away from family and felt practically dead: “I lost my life.”46
After being acquitted, he told reporters, “I feel free. It’s about time somebody believed me. Fifty years is a long time.”47
On July 2, 2024, Minister of Justice Arif Virani ordered a new trial for Clarence Woodhouse.48 At his retrial on October 3, 2024, Michele Jules again appeared for the Crown and stated that there was “no credible or reliable evidence” with which to proceed against him.49 Chief Justice Joyal then acquitted him, finding that systemic racism had “infected” every stage of the case, including the police investigation, prosecution, and appeal.50
Following their acquittals, the three exonerated co-defendants filed suit against the City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, and federal government, seeking recompense for their wrongful convictions.51 Anderson and Clarence Woodhouse both told reporters that if successful, they hoped to be able to afford a home of their own, rather than continuing to reside with their children.52 At the time of writing, no settlement had been reached and trial dates were set for 2027.53
On September 29, 2025, Minister of Justice Sean Fraser ordered a new appeal in Russell Woodhouse’s case.54 This was the first time that “a post-mortem conviction review” resulted in a new hearing being ordered.55 The appeal date had not yet been set as of October 2025.56
Ting Fong Chan’s murder remains unsolved.57 A few weeks after Clarence Woodhouse’s exoneration, James Lockyer told press that other potential suspects were named in the police files, but they were “discounted because [police] had decided who had done the crime.”58