Local News
Four seniors’ apartment buildings connected to the Jewish community were built in a 20-year period in Winnipeg
Three have had open and fair admission policies throughout their histories, but now there are questions about how Shalom Gardens accepts new applicants
By BERNIE BELLAN There have been several periods in the history of Winnipeg’s Jewish community that saw bursts of construction activity of different sorts.
Perhaps the most notable period was the post-war era following World War II when, in no particular order, the community saw the building within a ten-year period of: the Shaarey Zedek, Rosh Pina, Adas Yeshurun (and Herzlia Academy), and Talmud Torah synagogues, along with the YMHA on Hargrave, Talmud Torah and I.L. Peretz schools, Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate, and Ramah Hebrew School.
The population of the Jewish community was growing rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s and the infrastructure that was built then was intended to serve a community that had shifted primarily from the old north end to newer communities in West Kildonan, Garden City, and River Heights.
As our community aged, however, there was another spurt of activity beginning with the construction of HSBA Gardens on Sinclair in 1970. This time, the focus was on seniors’ housing. There was a total of four buildings constructed from 1970 to 1991: HSBA Gardens, built in 1971 (50 suites); Beit Am (adjoining the Bnay Abraham Synagogue), built in the 1980s (65 suites); Shalom Gardens (next to Temple Shalom), built in 1987 (47 suites); and the Rosh Pina Housing Co-op, built in 1991 (62 suites).
Although one of the prime motivating factors in building the three north end buildings was to provide low-cost housing for Jewish seniors, over time the number of Jewish occupants of any of the three north end buildings dwindled.
As Myron Love noted in an article he wrote for this paper in 2013 upon the occasion of Temple Shalom’s 25th anniversary, “The purpose of three synagogue-related seniors apartments – the Beit Am was built adjacent to and connected with the former Bnay Abraham Synagogue and the Rosh Pina Co-op just across the road from the current Congregation Etz Chayim (which used to be the Rosh Pina) – was to provide affordable apartments for Jewish seniors who were looking to downsize and, it was hoped, to help boost attendance for Shabbat and daily minyan services at the synagogues.
“As things turned out however, with more members of the community choosing to move south – lured in part by newer assisted independent living complexes such as the Shaftesbury, the Portsmouth and the Boulton, the number of Jewish residents of the three apartment blocks is far outnumbered by non-Jewish seniors. The number of Jewish residents currently living at the 40-suite (all bachelor suites) HSBA Gardens, for example, may have dwindled to as few as one.”
And, while the construction of HSBA Gardens preceded the actual construction of the Beth Israel Synagogue on Sinclair Street, both the Beit Am and Rosh Pina Housing Co-op were built on vacant lots next to their respective synagogues.
The opening of the Rosh PIna Housing Co-op in 1991 followed the opening of Shalom Gardens in the south end in 1987. The rules governing housing co-ops in Manitoba are fairly clear:
“Co-op members purchase equity shares in the co-op and collectively become owners of the building and property.”
Members of co-ops have certain other responsibilities, as outlined in information available on a Manitoba Government website:
“1. You purchase a membership to live in a home owned by the co-op.
“2. As a member, you share in the financial and decision-making responsibility for the operation of the co-op, including who lives there.
“3. You pay a share of the costs to maintain the co-op.
“4. You build equity if you live in an equity co-op. You do not build equity if you live in a non-profit co-op.”
I spoke with Len Podheiser, who was one of the key figures involved in building the Rosh Pina Housing Co-op, and asked him how that project was financed. Len said that the financing “came 100% from CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.”
“It was built at no cost to the synagogue,” Len added. There were some advantages to having an apartment block next to the synagogue, he explained, such as being able to share snow clearing and landscaping costs.
Something else that Len noted was that Saul Simkin, who was one of the leading members of the Rosh Pina at the time, owned a brick factory in Denver, and he donated the interlocking bricks that make up the co-op’s façade.
Although, according to the co-op’s current manager, there are still some Jewish residents there, it’s a far cry from 1991, when the Rosh Pina Housing Co-op first opened and, according to Len Podheiser, “it was all Jewish.”
Each of the three north end buildings is now managed by professional building management companies. Anyone who would like to live in one of those buildings can simply contact the manager of each of the buildings and, if there is an opening and they meet the criteria for living in a particular residence, they will either be accepted or they will be put on a wait list until there is an opening.
As it turns out, however, the situation with Shalom Gardens insofar as being accepted as a member of that co-op is apparently quite different.
The story behind Shalom Gardens is a particularly fascinating one.
As Myron Love noted in that 2013 article which was written upon the occasion of Temple Shalom’s 25th anniversary, the construction of Shalom Gardens was what, in fact, led to Temple Shalom being able to move into what had previously been a Baptist Church on the corner of Grant and Wilton in Winnipeg’s south end.
“In June, 1987, the 80 members/member families of Temple Shalom, Winnipeg’s only Reform Congregation, literally took a leap of faith when they approved a proposal to buy a new building and property at the corner of Grant and Wilton,” Myron wrote.
“ ‘We started with $30,000,’ recalls Lorne Sharfe, one of the driving forces behind the purchase of the new building. ‘We had to come up with $460,000 by September. Just the down payment was $10,000.’
“A committee led by Sharfe, Allan Sourkes and the late Phil Schachter beat the bushes for the remaining funds. The TD Bank was prepared to loan the congregation $350,000. The fundraising committee also acquired grants from the provincial government and the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba. Along with some funds contributed by members and proceeds from the sale of their existing building, they were able to come up with enough money to buy the property.
“The final piece though was the construction of Shalom Gardens Housing Co-op Ltd., a low income seniors co-op adjoining the new Temple.
“Sharfe spoke about the challenges of raising funds for the congregation’s new building and how the idea for the housing co-op came about. ‘We had a parking lot on the corner beside our building, he recalled. ‘We were considering different options for developing the lot and generating income for the Temple.’
“The idea for the housing co-op originated with architect and Temple member Harry Haid. The benefits of building the apartment complex were a lump sum initial rental payment of $175, 000 (which went to paying down the TD mortgage) and the opportunity to further enhance the Temple – with an expanded entrance, new carpeting, wall paneling and lighting, the installation of an elevator and air conditioning, construction of an office, cloakroom, handicap access washroom, additional storage and an elevated parking structure at the rear of the building.”
In a recent conversation that I had with Lorne Sharfe, he told me that, in fact, he had put up a personal guarantee for the $460,000 that was required to buy the church on Grant and Wilton. Unlike the three north end projects, therefore, the building of Shalom Gardens was an absolute prerequisite for the Temple Shalom congregation to undertake; otherwise there wouldn’t have been a new home for the congregation.
And, although Shalom Gardens has always been open to residents of any faith or nationality, at the very beginning it had a heavy Jewish component, just as all the three north end residences had initially.
What got me interested in the four residences that were all built either by Jewish congregations or, as was the case with HBSA Gardens – the Hebrew Sick Benefit Association, was something that I discovered about how Shalom Gardens treats applicants for membership in that co-op.
While Shalom Gardens does have a part-time manager, unlike the Rosh Pina Housing Co-op, which is managed day-to-day by a professional apartment management firm, the members of Shalom Gardens actually play an active role in the day-to-day management of their building and it is one individual member of that co-op who seems to have the power to decide who will move into the co-op, whether or not a particular applicant may have applied ahead of another applicant.
Here is how I became involved in trying to sort out a troubling situation in which an individual was first told there was a vacancy at Shalom Gardens by the manager of Shalom Gardens, but when she immediately sent in her application, it was subsequently returned to her with the news that the unit had already been rented and that she would have to go on a wait list.
As I’ve noted before, I’ve been delivering kosher Meals on Wheels every Friday for the Gwen Secter Centre. On January 21st one of my clients mentioned that she would like to move elsewhere and she wondered whether I could recommend a nice place.
I immediately suggested Shalom Gardens, as I’m very familiar with that residence and think very highly of it. My customer told me she would follow up my suggestion and contact Shalom Gardens.
Two weeks after having mentioned Shalom Gardens to this client, on February 4th she told me that she was quite upset with what had subsequently happened to her.
She told me that when she called Shalom Gardens she was told there was a vacant unit there and that, if she sent in her application with a deposit, she would be able to have that unit.
But, shortly after having sent in her application, the client told me she received a letter from the manager of the membership committee of Shalom Gardens, in which she was now informed that the unit in question had been given to someone else. She wondered what had happened in the interim period?
I told her that I would attempt to ascertain exactly what happened, i.e. Why was she told there was a vacant unit which she could have, and then told that it was not available?
I did speak to another resident of Shalom Gardens and asked that person whether they had an idea what might have happened? This person suggested that the chair of the membership committee is able to decide who moves into Shalom Gardens on her own and evidently she had not wanted to see the vacant unit rented out to my Meals on Wheels client.
I have attempted to contact the manager of the membership committee to find out why she rejected my customer’s application, but I was told that she’s in Vancouver now and I was unable to reach her. I have also attempted to contact the manager of Shalom Gardens who, I presume, is the person to whom my customer spoke when she inquired about any vacancies at Shalom Gardens to ask her what happened, but she did not return my calls.
While I can well understand that Shalom Gardens was not built with the specific purpose of providing housing for Jewish seniors – unlike the three north end buildings, I am somewhat dismayed at the sequence of events that led my Meals on Wheels client first to get her hopes up, then to have them dashed. While the members of Shalom Gardens themselves have ultimate responsibility for managing their co-op, it seems evident that one individual who vets applications for membership wields inordinate power in deciding who will be accepted as a member. It was suggested to me that this individual has favoured friends of hers when it comes to moving into what is a very highly sought after seniors residence in the south end, and that individuals such as my Meals on Wheels client have been bumped as a result.
Unfortunately, it seems, there is no recourse for this individual, except to have me put in print what happened to her, which might lead to a much closer scrutiny on the part of Shalom Gardens co-op members how the chair of the membership committee handles applications for membership in that co-op.
Really, what ought to happen is that applications for membership at Shalom Gardens should be handled by someone who has no particular interest in favouring anyone over anyone else.
Local News
Epic court battle shaping up between Etz Chayim Congregation and two former members who are now barred from setting foot in Etz Chayim
By BERNIE BELLAN Introduction: This story had originally been posted Friday morning, August 14, with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue. Then we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:
“Hi Bernie.
“This request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul. We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons. Can I please ask that you change the image posted online (and planned for print if needed) and that in this be kept in mind for the future?
“Thank you so much for your understanding,
“Morissa”
We replied:
“Gee Morissa – I’ll do that but maybe you better ask Google to remove any mention of any Winnipeg synagogue because all anyone has to do is do a Google search and they’ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses – also photos! Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can’t be too careful, can we?
Now, here’s the story as it was originally posted:
The date October 7 carries a huge amount of significance for Jews around the world: It was the date that members of Hamas and other terrorist groups launched a murderous attack on innocent Israelis (and members of other nationalities) that resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 people and the abduction of 251 others.
But it is also a date that may have a significance of a different sort come this October 7 when a Winnipeg courtroom will be the scene of a court case in what is shaping up to be a momentous legal battle between Congregation Etz Chayim and two former members of the congregation who have been barred from attending services – or even setting foot inside the building that houses Congregation Etz Chayim.
Before publishing this article I had sent copies to both sides in the dispute – and offered both sides the opportunity to correct any mistakes they might have found in what I had written. I did receive responses from both sides and have incorporated their suggested corrections into what follows.
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim – and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advise of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.
While the case may seem hugely complicated, given the number of pages of documents that have already been filed, it seems that it boils down to two essential issues: Did CEC violate its own bylaws (or its own constitution, as the case may be, because at the time of the events in question a bylaw which would have governed who might be excluded from belonging to the congregation had not yet been passed) by terminating the memberships of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult? The argument advanced by the plaintiffs is not that a congregation cannot decide who can belong to that congregation. Rather, it is an argument that CEC did not properly adhere to its own bylaws in the manner in which it has excluded the plaintiffs from attending – or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.
But, a second issue in play – and one which is argued forcefully by CEC in one of its briefs is that the argument Emet Eviatar and David Hoult are advancing has no place in the courts in the first place. As is noted in one of the briefs filed on behalf of CEC: “The dispute is, at its core, about the internal governance of a religious congregation. It concerns who may participate in communal worship, who may participate in communal religious life, and how a synagogue governs itself in response to legitimate security concerns. If it is accepted that the dispute was about ideological differences, as alleged by the Applicants, then these are fundamentally religious questions. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and ought not to intervene.”
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated – but very interesting story.
I, myself was first made aware that something unusual was going on between CEC and David Hoult when I received this email from Dr. Hoult on Friday afternoon May 30, 2025, at 12:42 pm:
“Hi Bernie,
“I have just had a pair of police officers at the door telling me that we are now banned from Etz Chayim and if we show up the police will be called, no reasons given. I suspect it was an accumulation of things, including a letter I sent.
“Shabbat shalom,
“David.”
Later that afternoon I received another email, this time from a member of CEC, who forwarded me an email that had been sent to congregation members by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC. That email had a letter attached, which said, in part:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately.
“These individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities.”
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
“Hi,
“I received an email from David Hoult telling me that he is now banned from the Etz Chayim. I assume Emet Eviatar is also banned too, judging by the way your email is worded.
“I don’t know David at all – other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can’t begin to imagine what he might have written, but in the interest of fair reporting and fuller disclosure, can you say anything more about what he wrote in his letter?
“-Bernie Bellan
“Publisher,
“jewishpostandnews.ca
“also Associate Editor,
“The Jewish Post Winnipeg”
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that “troubling correspondence” which was received by CEC.
It was only when I went down to the Law Courts on August 10 that I was actually able to see what was in that “troubling correspondence.”
But, before I get into what was in that particular communication, even more background to this strange case is necessary.
In an email I received from CEC COO Morissa Granove following my having sent her a draft of this article, she wrote: “Congregation Etz Chayim …has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar’s views and yet there has never been an issue with their behaviour and as such, Congregation Etz Chayim has never taken action against anyone, revoked a membership, or refused entry to anyone based on their political stance.” Dr. Eviatar, in her own words, notes that she had already provoked the displeasure of some members of CEC, including staff members, by certain of her behaviours while, according to Morissa Granove, “volunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC …is ‘a Zionist organization’.”
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar’s family’s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question – until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar’s husband.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the following is taken from an affidavit given by Emet Eviatar, which might suggest that her membership in CEC had been called into question long before May 2025:
“In July 2024, I co-founded Manitoba Friends of Standing Together, a chapter of the international support network created by Standing Together. Standing Together is a grassroots joint Jewish and Palestinian organization in Israel which was originally created in 2015 to fight for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas they have pivoted to protesting the war in Gaza.
“On October 6, 2024, I appeared as a guest on the local CBC Radio Weekend Morning Show, together with Mr. Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba to discuss the importance of having local conversations between Jews and Palestinians…
“Later that week, I received a phone call from CEC Rabbi Kliel Rose and Cantor Tracy Kasner. They informed me that I would no longer be allowed to lead Sunday services. The rabbi also suggested that ‘for my own peace of mind’ I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.”)
“On November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald…
“While the letter contains various false statements, and is clearly a reference to my having contact with Mr. Zeid and others in the local Palestinian community, the assertion that I was aligned with an ‘ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel’ was extremely offensive and hurtful to my being an Israeli citizen, having family who live in Israel, and having served in the Israel Defence Forces.”
Later, on March 3, 2025, Emet Eviatar appeared a second time on the CBC morning weekend radio show, again with Mr. Zeid.
In an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, Ms. Granove explained the CEC’s objection to Emet Eviatar’s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC’s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar’s or her the family’s membership.)
“This public alignment with parties opposed to Israel raised concern within CEC about potential risks surrounding the Synagogue, especially in times of heightened safety risks and awareness of antisemitic vitriol. These concerns were brought to the attention of Dr. Eviatar. She took no action to mitigate these concerns. As a result, she was removed from a volunteer leadership position she held with CEC. CEC took no action regarding either of the Applicants’ ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.” In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: “Still, her family’s membership was never in question.”
But, in May 2025 something happened that led the CEC to take drastic action against Emet Eviatar, David Hoult and the other members of their household. It should be explained that, according to an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, who had stepped into the role of Chief Operations Officer of CEC in January 2025, in May 2025 CEC announced it would be adding new security measures, based on a “site security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
“Among other things, he advised:
“a) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
“b) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;”
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, “During discussion relating to security protocols…David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.”
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: “On May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
‘If, G-d forbid, I wanted to attack the shul on Shabbat morning it would be trivial. A stolen motorbike, onto the lawn, Kalashnikov to shatter the windows, gun down the congregation, drive away, ditch the bike, gun, mask and clothes…” (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, “In that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as ‘hysteria,’ ‘paranoia,’ and ‘psychologically stupid.’ “
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, “My wife and I received no direct communication from CEC advising of the termination of our membership until a cheque with no accompanying letter was received in the mail on June 9, 2025.”
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: “Congregation Etz Chayim was interviewed extensively by the WPS before going to the home of Dr. Hoult for the service call and had all of the details which were required in order to qualify their actions.”
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King’s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared “null and void,” also seeking an “order to comply with bye-laws” (of the CEC).
In response, CEC asserts that it “has never terminated the Applicants’ membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.” Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC “exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.’
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn’t “terminated the Applicants’ membership,” yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC’s position that, based on the plaintiffs’ claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts – as is noted at the beginning of this article, then arguments over whether CEC abided by its own bylaws would be moot.
Yet, if the courts might be willing to consider the issue whether CEC did not properly follow its own rules – as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC “terminated” the memberships of Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult might take on added importance.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the letter sent out by Morissa Granove to members of CEC on May 30, 2025 states quite clearly that “We have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.”
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC’s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there “provisions for the termination of membership.” Therefore, their argument goes, “CEC had no authority to terminate their membership.”
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: “The defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC’s governing constitution says that “directors ‘may pass by-laws’ regulating, among other things, ‘the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.’ The word ‘may’ is permissive.”
“Thus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.”
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership “had not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that “the very same bylaw was passed at a Special General Meeting of the members when Congregation Etz Chayim and its lawyers provided clarity on the proposed changes, which was requested by the members at the conclusion of the AGM to clear up any issue or confusion.”
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that “These individuals (i.e., Dr. Hoult and any members of his family) are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities” was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.
Whether or not CEC followed proper procedure in whatever happened to Dr. Hoult, Dr. Eviatar, and their other family members will be up to the courts to decide.
But, there is a larger issue at hand. Are there are any rules that might govern how a private organization such as a synagogue should govern itself? And, perhaps even more important, can the courts intervene at all in such a situation?
This case is shaping up to have some fascinating implications.
Local News
Ami Hassan returning as owner of Falafel Place
By BERNIE BELLAN In a surprise move – and after more than a six-year absence as owner of Falafel Place (Corydon at Wilton) the legendary Ami Hassan has decided to return as owner of one of Winnipeg’s most famous eateries.
Long known for his sometimes irreverent attitude to his customers, e.g., “If you’re finished, get out!”, Ami decided to return to running Falafel Place after having retired years ago (or so he thought) from running the Corydon Avenue restaurant.
We asked Ami whether he’ll be sending a special invitation to Julia Roberts to come visit him at Falafel Place. He asked again: “Who’s Julia Roberts?” (Just kidding – he really does know how Julia Roberts is.) Read the story how Ami told her to leave the restaurant and come back later at Julia Roberts turned away from Falafel Place
Ami did note that when customers saw him inside the restaurant one recent day as he was getting it ready for the reopening Monday, August 10, over 20 of them came in asking him if he was open already.
We asked Ami whether the menu will be the same as it was when he last ran the place and he said everything will be the same.
Falafel Place will be open 7 days a week from 7 am – 2 pm. Remember, if you’re finished – get out!
Local News
Bark Mitzvah at the Simkin Centre August 13, 2026
By BERNIE BELLAN On a beautiful summer day at the Simkin Centre residents and family members – along with staff, were treated to a delightful “dog day afternoon” when scores of dogs were brought to the front courtyard outside the centre to celebrate what was titled a “Bark Mitzvah.”
Now, no dogs were called up to the podium to read from the Torah – or even to bark out a blessing, although as I canvassed many owners of dogs that were there – inquiring as to whether their dogs had received any special training for the day, I was pleased to hear that many dogs came from good “Jewish homes” and were good “Jewish” dogs. (I would suppose, in the case of our own dog that would mean that she’s been spoiled rotten.)
Some owners though maintained that their dogs had been brought up quite disciplined – although to be honest none of the dogs that I saw seemed to be be rigorously paying attention to any commands. Most were of the Goldedoodle, Yorkie variety. There was one rescue dog in the midst. It seemed quite confused, surrounded as it was by all those lap dogs.
The entire event was presided over – with great humour, but also a certain amount of seriousness, by Rabbi Matthew Leibl, who explained to the very large audience why having a special day celebrating dogs was entirely consistent with Jewish tradition.
Following is part of the transcription of an interview I conducted with Rabbi Lebil following his remarks explaining why he thought holding a “Bark Mitzvah” would be a good event to have. (You can watch the entire video at the end of this story. But where there was a great deal of laughter coming from people who were listening to my interview YouTube inserted the word “laughter” – which should give you an idea how fun an interview it was.)
As Rabbi Leibl explained to me, “I’ll tell you a serious story. When I was training – and I trained with Rabbi Annabal Mass… our teacher, Rabbi Steven Glade, encouraged everyone to consider a blessing of the animals ceremony because he said it’s a monster event. Just look around. It brought out so many people. It’s one of those events you can tie in loosely to a Jewish event – which it is. I mean we did it on Rosh Chodesh Elul- the new year of the animals and this whole idea it’s very similar to Tu B’Shvat- reimagining something old from Mishna to do it like this – but look at the attendance. I mean everyone wants to bring their dog and at a personal care home they say that music, babies, and dogs are the three biggest things that get through to everyone.”
I had to ask about kashrut, however (as I’ve been told repeatedly that kashrut is an essential element of the Simkin Centre – no matter how few residents may care about kashrut. Look – if I’m sent to cover something as frivolous as a “Bark Mitzvah” you can hardly expect me to refrain from going after my pet bugaboo at the Simkin Centre – and how ridiculous it is to require that the centre remain kosher when most of the residents could care less about kashrut), so I said to Rabbi Leibl: “No milk bones here, I hope. I expect that this is a strictly kosher event.”
His response: “I’m not sure. I wasn’t put in charge of that, so I can’t say. But no one’s going to be serving them any of the food that we eat. I can tell [laughter] you that.”
I said: “I’m not sure how to read that. [laughter].”
I asked whether there were Jewish dogs mixed in with non-Jewish dogs? (Dog assimilation is a serious issue.)
Rabbi Leibl replied: It’s inter denominational. [laughter] . I guess I don’t think we check to see if the dogs were uh circumcised. “
I asked: “Are we… [laughter] Are we mixing Jewish and non-Jewish dogs?”
Rabbi Leibl: “I don’t know that dogs have a faith. I’m not sure. I think they do. I think they’re of all faiths. ”
I asked: “Okay. And you know where bark mitzvahs originated?”
Rabbi Leibl: I’m sure it’s probably something silly.
Me: “It was gay guys in New York.”
Rabbi Leibl: ” Really?”
Me: ” Yes. Because they didn’t have kids. They started having bark mitzvahs.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That was probably more of an individual dog thing. This is a communal thing. It’s just a catchy title for publicity, Bernie. It’s the blessing of the animals. That’s the real thing.”
Me: “I was told that some of these dogs are on medication – as are many of the residents.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That’s low hanging fruit, Bellan. Low hanging fruit.”
Here’s the complete video of my interview:
