Case Summary
Clarence Woodhouse was 21 years old 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.1 Woodhouse, whose first language is Saulteaux, had limited proficiency in English.2
In the summer of 1973, 40-year-old chef and father of two Ting Fong Chan was found beaten and stabbed to death in Winnipeg.3 A detective described the killing as “a bloody murder, a very vicious murder.”4 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.”5 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.6
Within days, the Winnipeg Police Service had focused on four young suspects—all Indigenous men: Clarence Woodhouse; his brother Russell Woodhouse, then 19 years old; Brian Anderson, 18; and Allan Woodhouse, 17.7 When they were arrested, police did not, nor would they ever, have any physical evidence connecting them to the crime.8 Nonetheless, four signed confessions were speedily obtained.9 Each confession was written in proficient English—a second language for all four men, none of whom spoke it fluently.10
In the years that followed, Clarence Woodhouse always maintained his innocence.11 All four co-defendants claimed that police had threatened and assaulted them before they signed the supposed confessions.12 By 1978, the detectives who took Anderson’s confession had been accused of police brutality in another case.13 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.”14
At the trial, which was held in English, Clarence Woodhouse’s proficiency was so limited that the “judge deemed it necessary—without request from counsel—for [him] to be provided the assistance of an interpreter.”15
Since there was no physical evidence, the Crown’s case relied on the written confessions. All four denied making these statements, and challenged their admissibility on the basis that they were involuntary because they were obtained through threats and violence.16 Clarence Woodhouse testified that he had “signed a false confession after he was assaulted by police officers.”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 He 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 his supposed confession.19
In March 1974, after a 12-day trial, an all-white Winnipeg jury convicted Clarence Woodhouse, Allan Woodhouse, and Brian Anderson of second-degree murder, and Russell Woodhouse of manslaughter.20 Clarence Woodhouse was sentenced to life imprisonment 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
Clarence Woodhouse was released on parole in 1983, having spent over a decade behind bars.29 Meanwhile, Anderson would not be released until 1987; he had initially been denied parole because he maintained his innocence.30 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.”31
In 2023, Clarence Woodhouse made an application to the federal Minister of Justice, under Section 696 of the Criminal Code, for a new trial on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice.32 His lawyers argued that his conviction was the product of systemic racism.33 In a subsequent interview, defence counsel James Lockyer of Innocence Canada stated: “What was particularly unsettling about this prosecution was that the racism was there from the beginning to the end — from the moment of the police investigation to the moment of [the men’s] conviction and sentencing.”34 Anderson and Allan Woodhouse had made similar “Section 696” applications in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Clarence’s brother Russell, however, had died in 2011.35 Their sister, Linda Anderson, requested in 2023 that the Minister of Justice conduct a posthumous review of Russell Woodhouse’s conviction for manslaughter.36
On June 22, 2023, Minister of Justice David Lametti ordered a new trial for Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse, having found that there was “a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.”37 At their retrial, on July 18, 2023, Crown prosecutor Michele Jules called no evidence and instead requested that both men be acquitted. She stated that systemic racism had permeated the prosecution, the confessions had been “entirely manufactured”, and “[w]e owe them and their families an apology” for the resulting wrongful convictions.38 The presiding judge, Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, acquitted both men and apologized “on behalf of the institution and system that failed [them].”39
On July 2, 2024, Minister of Justice Arif Virani ordered a new trial for Clarence Woodhouse, having found that there were likewise “reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred” in his case.40 The retrial was held in Winnipeg on October 3, 2024, 50 years after his wrongful conviction.41 Michele Jules again appeared for the Crown and stated that there was “no credible or reliable evidence” with which to proceed against him.42 She observed that “[t]he conduct of the prosecution fell below expected standards, even in 1974,” and that the case had been “almost entirely” based on the false confession that he had purportedly authored.43 The court heard “evidence from a forensic linguist [that] the level of English used in his apparent confession was inconsistent with the way he actually spoke when compared with his testimony at trial.”44 Jules characterized police use of force and threats to obtain coerced confessions as “a common problem” at the time, noting that “[s]ome of the detectives involved in [his] case were also involved in other[s] where suspects made similar claims about their confessions having been manufactured by police.”45
Chief Justice Joyal then acquitted Clarence Woodhouse, telling him, “You were wrongfully convicted. You were innocent.”46 He found that systemic racism had “infected” every stage of the case, including the police investigation, prosecution, and appeal.47 He apologized on behalf of the justice system: “All I can say from the position that I’m now in is I’m sorry.”48
Woodhouse, then 72, told reporters, “[i]t’s nice to be free … after all these years.”49 When the judge told him he was innocent, he said, “I was happy. I was all happy.”50 Woodhouse and Linda Anderson shared their thoughts of their brother Russell, who had not lived to see Clarence’s exoneration, nor to pursue his own. Anderson said: “He must be happy from above.”51
Manitoba Justice Minister Matt Wiebe offered his “heartfelt apologies to Mr. Woodhouse and his family,” stating that “[w]hat you knew to be the truth is now recognized by law. It’s recognized by our government and it’s recognized by me as attorney general.”52 He expressed hope that the apology could bring “a measure of peace and comfort,” though “nothing can be said that will bring back the years lost of freedom or the time away from family and friends.”53
The Winnipeg Police Service did not join the Chief Justice, Crown, and provincial government in apologizing for the wrongful conviction, but issued a short press release stating that WPS “acknowledges and accepts today’s decision” and has “worked diligently in the past five decades to ensure its practices have evolved.”54
Following the acquittal, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs called on “the Manitoba government to conduct a comprehensive review of all murder convictions involving First Nations citizens.”55 Acting Grand Chief Betsy Kennedy stated: “While we are relieved that Mr. Woodhouse’s name has finally been cleared, we cannot overlook the decades of injustice he and many others have endured – and continue to endure.”56
In February 2025, Clarence Woodhouse filed suit against the City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, and federal government, seeking recompense for his wrongful conviction.57 According to his statement of claim, police “showed him the false confessions of two of his co-accused … subjected him to verbal abuse related to his Indigenous heritage and physically assaulted him.”58 Brian Anderson and Allan Woodhouse had sued the same parties in April 2024.59 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. Clarence Woodhouse told the press, “I always wanted to … buy a house somewhere.”60 At the time of writing, no settlement had been reached and trial dates were set for 2027.61
On September 29, 2025, Minister of Justice Sean Fraser ordered a new appeal in Russell Woodhouse’s case, as reasonable grounds had again been found “that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.”62 This was the first time that “a post-mortem conviction review” resulted in a new hearing being ordered.63 The appeal date had not yet been set as of October 2025.64
Ting Fong Chan’s murder remains unsolved.65 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.”66