Local News
Jewish Federation holds first ever “town hall”
By BERNIE BELLAN It was a relatively small turnout – maybe 70 people were at the Shaarey Zedek Sunday morning, June 14 – but it may have been the start of a new foray by the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg into community outreach when a “town hall” was held to which members of the Jewish community had been invited to attend.
I had broached the idea of the Federation’s holding a community town hall with Federation CEO Jeff Lieberman back in the fall on an evening when he and newly installed Federation President Carrie Shenkarow had invited members of the community to come meet them for some one on one conversations.
I was disappointed that evening how few individuals showed up, so I shouldn’t have been surprised that the turnout for the town hall itself was relatively low.
But, give full marks to Lieberman and the others who were on the panel with him on June 14 for coming out to an event where they were prepared to answer any and all questions from audience members, as well as respond to questions that had been sent in by members of the community prior to the actual town hall.
Now, I should make clear that I have a particular position when it comes to attending any type of forum of the sort the Jewish Federation held, which is that any and all questions should be allowed – even if those questions might anger both the respondents to the question and audience members as well.
Toward almost the very end of the town hall I did ask a question that did elicit a somewhat negative reaction from within the audience – about the uproar over the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, but I’ll save what I asked and the response I got for later. Suffice to say for the time being, it seems apparent the suggestion that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and have a right to have their story told is anathema to many in the Jewish community.
The town hall was moderated by Neil Duboff. Accompanying Duboff on the podium at the Shaarey Zedek were four other individuals, each of whom was representing a particular Jewish organization: the aforesaid Jeff Lieberman, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg; Dr. Ruth Ashrafi, Regional Director, B’nai Brith Canada; Gustavo Zentner, CIJA Vice-President, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and Bellle Jarniewski, Executive Director, The Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada. Later in the program, they were joined on the podium by Rabbi Anibal Mass of Shaarey Zedek Congregation.
Each of the panellists gave what turned out to be fairly lengthy descriptions of what it is they do in their opening remarks, lasting a total of 20 minutes.
From time to time William Sagel, who is community security director for the Jewish Federation, but was not present in person, also joined in the discussion via a remote link.
Rather than report on how each of the panellists described what they do in their respective positions, I’ll jump right into the question and answer session that ensued. However, the initial question and answer segment of the program turned out to consist of questions that had been submitted beforehand and were read out by Neil Duboff, who took turns asking different panellists to respond to different questions.
Considering that a town hall is supposed to be a forum where, after opening remarks by whoever is going to respond to questions from audience members, the floor is supposed to be opened up to members of the audience to ask questions, having Neil Duboff read questions that had been submitted beforehand contradicted what is supposed to happen at a town hall, but hey: This was a first for our community, so I’ll give them a pass this town – but guys, next time – if there is a next time, how about having a real town hall?
What follows are snippets of what turned out to be a very long event that ran well past the allotted two hours that had originally been set aside. (If answers to questions posed, either by Duboff – reading from questions that had been submitted or by actual audience members themselves, seem exceptionally short, it’s for reasons of space, not because respondents gave abbreviated answers.)
The first question Duboff asked, and which was directed at Gustavo Zentner, was: “What is CIJA’s strategy for holding public officials accountable when current laws are not being enforced?”
Zentner responded that he prefers to meet one on one with officials – on a confidential basis, but he tries “to set a paper trail of accountability.”
One particular event that had a significant impact on the relationship CIJA (as well as other community organizations, other panellists noted) has had with politicians at various levels of government was the Bondi Beach attack in Australia last December during Chanukah, when 15 people were killed and 40 wounded by two gunmen who opened fire as members of the Sydney Jewish community were gathered to celebrate Chanukah on the beach.
Zentner noted that, following that attack, he met with the premier of Manitoba as well as the leader of the opposition, to discuss how the Manitoba government could bolster security for the Jewish community here.
Zentner said that, coming out of that discussion, the Manitoba government has now created a position of prosecutor specifically to deal with hate crimes and that the government “gave specific funds for security infrastructure for the community.”
He added that “two weeks ago” the Winnipeg Chief of Police released hate crime stats for the City of Winnipeg. “We were interviewed four times in 24 hours” about what the chief had said, Zentner added.
The next question Duboff asked was addressed to Jeff Lieberman: “What does the Federation do to prevent people from attending events who aren’t invited?”
Lieberman answered: “We pre-register” attendees.
He also said he wanted to add something to Zentner’s response to the question asked about holding public officials accountable.
He referred to Premier Wab Kinew’s controversial comment at the Federal NDP convention, held this past March, when Kinew said “Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein war” – a remark that was widely regarded as a dog whistle to antisemites.
Lieberman said that “Kinew said some things that were not favourable. We met with him and around one month later we got $1 million in new funding for security.”
Duboff asked Ruth Ashrafi to comment about the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the CMHR – which is scheduled to open June 27.
Ashrafi noted that in December 2023, in response to Israel’s incursion into Gaza following the October 7 massacre, there had been a “die-in” at the CMHR and word began to circulate that the CMHR was preparing to open an exhibit about the Nakba.
In April 2024, Ashrafi said, lawyer David Matas, acting on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, sent a letter to the CMHR, in which he voiced reasons that such an exhibit should not be mounted.
In November 2025, Ashrafi added, Jewish organizations were supposed to be informed about the Nakba exhibit, “but B’nai Brith wasn’t informed.”
She also referred to “all that other nonsense you can be a very good Jew and a non-Zionist.”
Belle Jarniewski also spoke about the Nakba exhibit, saying “consultation has not taken place on the exhibit…The problematic title suggests that the very creation and ongoing existence of the State of Israel is an ongoing catastrophe…This exhibit is putting a target on the backs of Jews across Canada…They (the CMHR) consulted with six percent of Jews across Canada – who are not Zionists…Carla Compton (the newly elected MLA for Tuxedo) said that ‘a museum is supposed to be about facts, not feelings’…The museum refused to say who is on the advisory council for the exhibit.”
Gustavo Zentner added: “The moment we were advised of the exhibit in November we asked them (the CMHR) not to make any more announcements…It is the federal government’s responsibility to take action on this problem. It doesn’t matter whether the government appointed the board.”
Duboff asked Lieberman: “What security planning is underway for community events?”
Lieberman asked Williams Sagel to respond. Sagel said there are security enhancements being implemented across a wide swath of community institutions, but he didn’t want to get into details.
Duboff asked a follow-up question: “What do you say to the suggestion that community responses to security threats are inadequate?”
Lieberman responded that “We have to be very careful what we do.”
Questions from the audience then followed. As one might expect, given the opportunity to speak, once handed the microphone, most audience members would go on and on without asking a question.
Here, in capsule form, are some of the questions asked:
“Why is there no Israeli person on the panel?”
“Why not put on a counter exhibit to the CMHR exhibit at the Convention Centre?”
“Why do we have three different organizations dealing with antisemitism?” (Actually, the questioner could have asked “Why do we have four different organizations” doing that, because the Jewish Federation, B’nai Brith, CIJA, and the recently formed Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism, which is part of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, all deal with antisemitism in one way or another.)
“How is what Belle is doing different from what Ruth and Gustavo are doing?”
Jarniewski responded: “We all collaborate all the time.”
A questioner asked what can be done about the Winnipeg Free Press which, he suggested, rarely prints an op-ed defending Israel.
Lieberman said: “It is not our mandate to take a stand against that particular business.”
A questioner asked “Why isn’t ‘Shomrim’ incorporated into the community?”
For readers unfamiliar with who “Shomrim” are, here is something generated by AI about Shomrim: “Shomrim Toronto is a dedicated volunteer organization committed to ensuring the safety and security of the Jewish communities across the Greater Toronto Area. As guardians of peace (Shalom), we bridge the gap between the community and local law enforcement through vigilant community patrols, educational programs, and direct incident response.”
In Montreal, “This is the community safety and emergency response patrol operating primarily within the Hasidic and broader Jewish communities (particularly in the Tosh and Outremont areas).”
Lieberman responded: “The organizations in Toronto an Montreal have been operated for numerous years.”
William Sagel added: “We’re training volunteers for the future.”
Then, I asked my question, followed by angry muttering from the audience. I began by suggesting that the Jewish community is far more diffuse than the panelists would have us believe and the idea that there is unanimity about the Nakba is not right. I also said that speaking at this particular “town hall” was really nothing more than speaking in an ‘echo chamber’ since none of the questions asked dared to challenge accepted wisdoms about Israel and the Nakba. I asked: “Is it not possible to acknowledge the existence of what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba?” (And, for anyone who might think what I said was absolutely outrageous, I simply suggest you do some reading about what Israeli leaders, including David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizman, and many others, said about the necessity of expelling large portions of the Palestinian population in order to create a viable State of Israel. I deal in reality, not mythology. And yes, I know that 800,000 Jews were also forced to leave their homes in Arab lands.)
Gustavo Zentner said: “The museum has not been transparent in its dealings….The (federal) government has a responsibility to step in and handle its responsibilities for corporate governance.”
A series of questions were asked by audience members about financial aid for members of the community, either to attend Gray Academy or Jewish camps. One audience member said that more parents are now sending their kids to Gray Academy or to Jewish camps as a result of antisemitism, but there was a need for more bursaries for those kids.
Jeff Lieberman agreed that “more and more kids” have left public schools and enrolled in Gray Academy after facing antisemitism in public school. He added that Gray Academy is giving out “$1 million in bursaries” each year. Lieberman pointed out that Gray Academy Head of School Lori Binder was in the audience and he asked her to come to the front to address the question of financial aid for parents wanting to send their kids to Gray Academy.
Binder said: “No one who comes to our door will ever be denied a Jewish education,” but in response to the suggestion from one audience member that non-Jewish families are receiving financial aid to send their kids to Gray Academy, Binder was unequivocal in saying that’s not true, saying that “non-Jewish families are not receiving financial assistance at all.”
Although this has been a long article to read (if you made it this far) I’ve really only attempted to give a flavour of what happened at the town hall. By the time it was nearing an end, Neil Duboff suggested that it would be a good idea to hold another such town hall. Yes, tempers may fray at a town hall (and I’m used to being criticized for daring to say things that don’t go over well with many others), but it was a very civil discussion, albeit with not enough time for questions from actual audience members. Full credit to Jeff Lieberman for following through on my suggestion to hold a town hall. And now that there’s been one – and the organizers may have learned where they can improve things, it would be a good idea to hold another one – but please, try to include members of the community who are either disaffected – which I would suggest is the majority of the Jewish community, or even those who are stridently opposed to the positions taken by our established Jewish organizations.
Local News
Simkin Centre to build new child care centre next to existing personal care home
(August 17, 2026) By BERNIE BELLAN A large crowd was on hand this morning in the Simkin Centre atrium to watch as representatives of the federal and provincial governments; Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre; donors, and representatives of donors all stood together to announce a new child-care centre to be built adjacent to the Simkin Centre personal care home.
The $17.6 million project will be funded by a combination of public and private money. Of the total cost, $4.5 million will be coming from a capital grant from the Canada-Manitoba child-care agreement, while the other $13.1 million will be coming from a combination of donations and grants.
Once completed, the new child-care centre, which will be called the Faye Vickar Lazer Early Learning Centre, will have 152 licensed spaces for children up to 12 years of age.
The centre will be operated by the Rady JCC. In a press release issued by the Rady JCC, it was noted that, “in total, the centre will provide care for 24 infants, 68 preschool-aged children, 30 nursery-aged children and 30 school-aged children, helping address the significant need for accessible, high-quality, and affordable childcare in Winnipeg.”
The release also noted that currently “The Rady JCC currently operates two early learning centres, the Kaufman Child Care Centre and David & Ruth Asper Early Learning Centre, and has a waitlist of more than 600 families. “
The centre itself will be part of a new wing of the Simkin Centre (on the north side), which is currently a staff parking lot, to be called the Gray Family Centre. In addition to the day care portion, the wing will also house a multi-purpose area for community programming and worship, a grand gallery and a wellness centre.
In explaining why the Simkin Centre has now expanded its focus from some of the oldest members of our community to some of the youngest, Simkin Centre CEO Laurie Cerqueti said “being in this business for over 30 years now, I know things that make our residents happy are music, animals, and children. So, if we’re going to be able to bring the children here on a regular basis, it’s going to make life all that much better for our residents.”
Construction of the centre is slated to start this October and be completed in May 2028.
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 advice 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!
