Local News
The Jewish National Fund is taking the federal government to court after its charitable status is revoked
By JONATHAN ROTHMAN (Canadian Jewish News) The Jewish National Fund of Canada is taking the federal minister of national revenue to court over Canada Revenue Agency’s decision to revoke its status as a charitable organization.
The federal tax agency’s review of JNF’s funding activities followed reports that it was funding projects in Israel related to the military, which would violate Canada’s rules for charitable organizations.
JNF’s court filing says it will contest CRA’s “wrong and unjustified decision to revoke our charitable status,” according to a letter from JNF’s board president Nathan Disenhouse and CEO Lance Davis posted online July 25.
The organization says that while the matter is before the courts, JNF’s charitable work will continue, “including collecting donations and issuing charitable receipts.”
The CJN made multiple requests for an interview to JNF, including to Davis specifically. While JNF did not grant an interview, the organization provided an emailed response to The CJN’s questions about the matter.
“The CRA has only signaled its intention to revoke, and its policy is to revoke only after the charity’s avenues of appeal are exhausted. So, it is the status quo until there is a court ruling. In the interim, we remain open to working with the CRA on alternate courses of action,” JNF told The CJN.
In its federal court appeal notice, JNF also posits there is a “reasonable apprehension of bias in the decision,” saying Canada’s revenue minister “was under great public pressure to revoke [JNF’s] registered charity status.”
JNF maintains the core issue for the revocation remains “the CRA’s assertion that our original founding charitable object that it accepted almost 60 years ago is now no longer considered to be a charitable object.”
Media reports about JNF’s struggles with the CRA since the July 24 court filing have inaccurately referenced past projects, conflating two different matters, Disenhouse and Davis wrote in an email to Canadian supporters on July 30. JNF sought to “clear up a misconception” it said had been “advanced in numerous articles recently published about JNF Canada,” they wrote in the July 30 email.
“The articles conflated the matter of JNF’s community projects on IDF bases and our recent notice of confirmation to revoke our charitable status. In the June 26, 2024 correspondence from CRA, there was not one mention of the projects on IDF property.”
Some of the previous projects, critics of JNF alleged over the past decade or so, had taken place on land that crossed into the West Bank, or involved infrastructure supporting the military, like building playgrounds on a military base. (One of its fiercest critics, Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), a Canadian Jewish group which supports the boycott and sanctions movement against Israel, has been involved for more than a decade in the attempt to have CRA revoke JNF’s charitable status.)
“The fundamental issue was with respect to our charitable purpose. It was very unfortunate that certain journalists shared content from articles about JNF Canada from many years ago that was not referenced in CRA’s recent correspondence,” Disenhouse and Davis wrote to supporters.
In the late 1960s, the minister of national revenue approved the organization’s purposes and activities, and so “we did not know that there was an issue with our purposes or activities because previous CRA audits did not reveal an issue,” JNF wrote to The CJN in a response to emailed questions.
The organization has been audited five times by the CRA since it began in the 1960s, with the most recent audit in 2014. As a result of that audit, which was based on work done in 2011 and 2012, JNF learned in 2019 that the CRA intended to revoke its charitable status.
JNF said that since the original notice of intent to revoke was issued in 2019, the CRA has been unwilling to meet in person with them.
JNF points out that, according to CRA’s website, they revoked three to five percent of charities audited, “and a large number of them are for failing to file their annual documentation with the CRA. It is evident, based on the statistics, that it is only in rare occurrences is a charity revoked.”
JNF’s email went on to explain that CRA had refused to pursue options other than revocation of its charitable status.
“There are a number of options available to the CRA aside from revocation and we do not understand why they would pursue the most punitive course of action,” JNF wrote.
JNF said CRA had not taken the steps that are outlined on its website, including “exploring compliance measures such as education letters, compliance agreements and sanctions before revoking an organization’s charitable status.”
“The CRA not only skipped steps one to three, it also refused to entertain our suggestions of new objects for our charity or to discuss a compliance agreement,” wrote JNF in the email, adding that CRA representatives “refused to sit down with us at any point in the 10 years of this audit, except for one meeting a few months ago when two representatives of the appeals division granted us an hour and arrived at the meeting with no agenda and no questions for us.”
Bias in the audit, JNF claims
JNF said its appeal filing argues that “there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the audit.”
An access to information request made it evident “that there was a campaign of anti-Israel organizations, unions, political parties, etc. calling upon the CRA to revoke JNF’s charitable status.
“We have written to the CRA with our concerns that this content may have biased the audit process. CRA replied in writing that there was no bias in the audit.
“This evidence of bias comes from the CRA’s own records, which show that the public pressure on the CRA and the minister to revoke JNF’s status was an important consideration within the chain of authority at the Charities Directorate,” the charity told The CJN.
JNF clarified its position regarding potential CRA bias.
“To be clear, we are not suggesting the CRA is antisemitic,” JNF wrote.
“As a Zionist-inspired organization, however, JNF Canada has many vociferous antisemitic detractors who we believe have influenced the decision-making process in this matter. “
The work done by JNF
Established in 1967, JNF, one of Canada’s oldest Jewish charities, is known for its tree-planting and environmental work in Israel, along with building playgrounds for children. Its more recent projects include JNF Quebec division’s Climate Solutions Prize, which encourages the development of innovative technology addressing climate change by nonprofit institutions and early-stage companies.
However, some of JNF’s projects, which its critics allege support the Israeli military or are on land in the West Bank, have made it the focus of scrutiny by Canadian critics of Israel. Adding to that scrutiny, former prime minister Stephen Harper—criticized by some for his pro-Israel stance–was a visible JNF supporter during his years in office, and JNF named the visitor centre at its Hula Valley bird sanctuary in Israel which opened in 2006 for Harper,
In its email to The CJN, the charity says that it has “systematically and comprehensively addressed” the issues raised in CRA’s 2014 audit.
“Although we do not concede that building parks and playgrounds on IDF land is a violation of charity law, we are no longer are involved with projects on IDF land or any projects that may in any roundabout way benefit the IDF.
“While JNF Canada disagrees that it is contrary to Canadian foreign policy to develop projects on disputed territory (there are dozens of Canadian charities that operate in the disputed territories with CRA’s blessing), we have not supported new projects in the disputed territories since this matter was brought to our attention.”
JNF said that it has an Israeli lawyer review issues of land ownership before undertaking a project “so that we can be certain that we are not doing anything in violation of CRA policies,” and that it had hired a new chief financial officer “who has worked closely with our legal counsel to enhance our record keeping.”
On its website, JNF says its mission currently is “focusing our efforts on the greatest needs in social and environmental infrastructure.”
“We will continue to raise funds in support of building Israel’s charitable social infrastructure to the benefit of vulnerable populations such as youth-at-risk, victims of domestic abuse, children with special needs, veterans and the disadvantaged” while the court appeal proceeds, JNF wrote.
“JNF Canada’s projects benefit all residents of Israel regardless of their religion, ethnicity, creed, [or] orientation.”
Years of anti-Zionist activism led to this moment
The current legal challenge follows years of scrutiny from opponents of the organization, including but not limited to IJV.
IJV’s national coordinator, Corey Balsam, who trumpeted the victory on social media, said the decision came after years of the group’s work on this file, though he noted JNF’s court appeal notice.
“Can’t believe it happened! IJV started working on this 15 years ago, building on decades of work by Ismail Zayid and others,” posted Balsam, referring to one of the four individuals IJV had helped to organize the campaign to have JNF’s charitable status probed and removed over JNF’s Canada Park project.
In 2017, IJV filed a complaint against JNF with federal authorities, alleging that the charity’s activities contravened the Income Tax Act, international law and CRA guidelines.
Then, in a highly critical CBC News article in January 2019, reporter Evan Dyer wrote that JNF had been the subject of the CRA audit over a complaint that it used charitable donations to build infrastructure for the Israel Defense Forces “in violation of Canada’s tax rules.” (JNF maintains that its last CRA audit was in 2014, though conflicting reports reference an audit in 2018. The notice of intent to revoke JNF’s status by CRA is dated August 20, 2019.)
JNF pushed back on the allegations that JNF Canada and its Israeli parent organization, Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (KKL-JNF), were supporting projects at several military bases, including outdoor fitness areas, developing a new training base, upgrading an existing auditorium for solider intake and new mess hall facilities at two air force bases.
JNF Canada says it stopped funding those projects in 2016 following CRA guidance and told Dyer for that report that JNF operates within CRA rules concerning the organization’s charitable status.
JNF’s CEO, Lance Davis, said at the time the projects were carried out on land owned by the IDF, but that JNF Canada’s charitable funds never flowed to the IDF.
Davis told The CJN in 2019 that with regards to projects “in disputed territory,” JNF is committed to continuing to work with the CRA “to ensure we are in full compliance,” and referred to a 2015 opinion piece in The CJN written by Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada, which argued that the land on which Canada Park sits was “never part of any Palestinian state or entity.”
In 2021, JNF Canada announced it had distanced itself from KKL-JNF which is “an Israeli public benefit corporation.”
“KKL serves as an agent to JNF Canada on a number of our charitable projects. This means that KKL works for JNF Canada in realizing projects that our board selects and agrees to fund. There is a long history between our organizations and we proudly collaborate with KKL on a variety of projects that advance Zionist education and enhancing the environment as well as the quality of life for the people of Israel,” JNF wrote in its email to The CJN.
“There was confusion with respect to the relationship between the two organizations so we rebranded to clarify that we are an independent Canadian charity.”
What the CRA has to say
A spokesperson for CRA declined The CJN’s request for an in-person interview, instead offering written responses to questions.
Addressing JNF’s allegations of anti-Israel sentiment within the CRA’s ranks influencing the charitable status revocation decision, CRA spokesperson Nina Ioussoupova told The CJN via email that the agency is “committed to administering acts for which it is responsible in a fair and impartial manner.”
“The CRA assesses all concerns about registered charities against a clear regulatory and risk framework designed to prevent bias in our decision-making process,” she wrote.
“Additionally, the CRA has a responsibility to protect the integrity of the tax system and the charitable sector and fulfills this responsibility through a balanced program of education, client service, and responsible enforcement, including audits.”
Citing confidentiality provisions under the laws it administers, CRA declined to comment on specific details of court cases.
The website Charity Intelligence Canada currently lists JNF Canada at a one-star rated charity. “JNF Canada is not financially transparent. Its audited financial statements are not posted on its website nor provided when requested,” the website reported.
Its last audited financial statements in 2022, show that JNF received $13.2 million in donations and spent $6.2 million on programs and grants, according to the Charity Intelligence page. JNF Canada’s reserve funds are $30.8 million, the website reports.
“JNF Canada works in Israel and Canada. Its programs in Israel focus on funding social and environmental infrastructure, while its Canadian projects focus on outreach and education in Jewish communities,” the Charity Intelligence page reads.
The website lists the charity’s five core programs as Builders Circle, Climate Solutions Prize, JNF Education, JNF Families, and JNF Future, but notes that JNF “does not provide a breakdown of spending by program.”
As of July 26, Charity Intelligence Canada has updated its JNF page with the following information:
“After nearly [five] years of review and exchanges with JNF Canada, the CRA Charities Directorate announced its decision to revoke its charity status. This would mean that support for JNF Canada no longer receives donation tax receipts. JNF Canada is appealing this decision claiming that the CRA Charities Directorate’s decision is wrong and unjustified.”
Local News
Thoughts on Sid Green
By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.
Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:
Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.
At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.
Local News
Sid Green – famed lawyer, one of the first Jewish provincial cabinet ministers, and first director of BB Camp – passes at age 96
By BERNIE BELLAN Sid Green, whose name was well known in so many different circles in Manitoba, passed away on Sunday, June 7, at the age of 96.
Green was perhaps best known as one of three Jewish Members of the Legislature who became cabinet ministers in the first ever NDP government in Manitoba, which came to power in 1969 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer. (The other two Jewish members who became cabinet ministers were the late Saul Cherniack and the late Saul Miller.)
Green, who had first been elected as an MLA in 1966 representing the riding of Inkster, led a challenge to then-NDP leader Russ Paulley in 1968, which eventually led to Paulley resigning as leader. The subsequent leadership race saw Green, who was only 39 at the time, facing off against a 32-year-old Ed Schreyer.
Although Green and Schreyer were later to part ways over a number of issues – especially over the issue of aid to private schools, Green and Schreyer were actually good friends.
In fact, Ed Schreyer, who is now 90, spoke at Green’s funeral, which was held Tuesday, June 9, at the Chesed Shel Emes (with interment following at the Hebrew Sick Benefit Cemetery).
Schreyer told some humourous stories about his and Sid’s competition for the NDP leadership back in 1969. Although the two were rivals they agreed occasionally to share expenses along the way as they toured various Manitoba locations, including one night in a hotel in Flin Flon (or it may have been somewhere else; I wasn’t taking notes at the funeral.) Regardless, they agreed to share a room that night but, as Schreyer recalled, it had to have “two beds.”
Another time during that race, when they were somewhere in western Manitoba, they both received a call from someone in a place on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. (Again, I don’t remember which location Schreyer said it was.) The caller said they both had to get there soon because there was going to be a crowd of several hundred people gathered for some other event – and it would have been a perfect time to do some politicking.
But, as they pointed out to the caller, that location was 250 kilometres away and they couldn’t possibly drive there on time – so they both agreed to hire a float plane to fly them there. Unfortunately, that was a very windy day, Schreyer noted, and the plane wasn’t able to land close enough to shore for the both of them to wade in. Instead they decided to jump off the plane’s pontoon – landing up to their armpits in water. They bravely went to meet the assembled crowd – in their soaking wet suits.
Green had a long career as an MLA, being elected to the Manitoba Legislature four times: in 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977. Eventually he broke completely with the NDP and, along with fellow NDP MLA Ben Hanuschak, started a new party, called the Manitoba Progressive Party, in 1981, which failed abysmally.
I remember well how captivating a speaker Sid Green was when he was campaigning in 1981. One story that he told several times to different audiences went along these lines: After the NDP first formed government in 1969 – much to the surprise of almost everyone back then, Green was often called upon to speak at different venues because he was such a powerful orator.
One time he was somewhere in rural Manitoba and before he was called up to the podium to deliver his remarks, the person who was introducing Green said to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce to you the ‘Green Minister.'”
Not missing a beat, Sid took to the podium and said something along the following lines to the audience: “My first appointment to Cabinet was as Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Resources. Well, I little knew about energy, even less about mines, and nothing at all about natural resources. So the title “the Green Minister” is an apt one.”
In his early years, Sid Green was a very active member of the YMHA on Albert Street, serving as president of the house council for several years. A dedicated athlete, Green competed in basketball and volleyball at the Y. At the age 50 he took up ice hockey – and was known for his fierce competitiveness. He was to serve on the board of directors of the YMHA for many years, right up until its closing in 1997.
Green was also the quarterback for the University of Manitoba law school football team during the early 1950s – and led them to two school championships. In a 2019 interview I conducted with Green about his early years at the YMHA, he noted that he was the only 5’6″ 150 pound quarterback in the inter-faculty league.
In 1954 Green became the first director of BB Camp, which had just moved to Town Island from Sandy Hook.
In 1955, Green graduated from the U of M law school, winning the gold medal in law that year.
He went on to become one of Manitoba’s most successful labour lawyers, subsequently pairing withfamed labour lawyer, Leon Mitchell, later to be joined by Sam Minuk (who was to become a provincial court judge) in what became the firm of Mitchell, Green & Minuk.
During his time as a lawyer, Green often represented employers – which might seem a little surprising for someone who such a staunch NDPer. But Green was staunchly opposed to entrenching laws such as anti-scab legislation or secret ballot voting to unionize. He thought it important to represent any client, including employers engaged in disputes with unions, no matter how much he might have disagreed with that client’s position, and because he was so skilful in arguing a case, he was much sought after by employers to represent them in labour disputes.
He was so respected as a lawyer, moreover, that he was often asked to represent other lawyers in cases before the courts.
Green was also very pro-Israel and extremely proud of his Jewish roots. Although not a religious man, during his many years at the Y – first on Albert Street, then later on Hargrave, Green was involved in developing many Jewish cultural programs.
In days to come we will have much more about the life of Sid Green. In the meantime, if you want to watch a video interview I did with Sid about his experiences at the Y on Albert Street, you can go to Sid Green reminisces.
Sid Green was predeceased by his wife Shleema in 2009 and is survived by his five children: Arthur, MIndy, Cathy, Sharon, and Marty, as well as 15 grandchildren.
For more about Sid Green’s career, read Grant Mitchell’s eulogy, which was delivered at the Meal of Remembrance following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9: Grant Mitchell on Sid Green
Local News
The Jewish Post Ltd.’s brand new website
Click here to be taken to our new website featuring foods you can find on Facebook Marketplace
