Local News
At Limmud: New University of Manitoba president Michael Benarroch speaks of the challenges presented by stepping into his role in midst of a pandemic
By BERNIE BELLAN While there were a great many interesting speakers at this year’s Limmud, the one speaker to whom I was looking most forward to hearing was Michael Benarroch, the new president of the University of Manitoba.
Since returning to Winnipeg last summer after having served as the provost and vice-president of Ryerson University in Toronto since the fall of 2017, Benarroch was thrust headlong into having to take over his position in the midst of a pandemic.
Naturally, there haven’t been many opportunities to see and hear Benarroch, nor to interview him since he returned to Winnipeg, so his appearing at Limmud allowed Limmud participants the chance to hear directly from a man whose career has seen him move steadily up the academic administration ladder in the past 30 years.
At times wistful – in speaking of his family’s having come here from Morocco, at other times contemplative, in discussing how important it is to include Indigenous students and faculty in reshaping the U of M, Benarroch told a story – of how he’s arrived at his present situation in life and what his goals are looking forward.
“My parents never had the opportunity to go to university,” Benarroch explained at the outset of his presentation.
“My family came to Winnipeg (from Morocco) because my mother’s brother was in Winnipeg. My father was a teacher, but when he came to Winnipeg he found a job as a shochet,” Benarroch said.
It was while he was an undergrad at the University of Winnipeg that Benarroch said he developed a “passion for economics”. He later went on to acquire a PhD in Economics from Carleton University – in 1992.
Upon completing his PhD Benarroch returned to the University of Winnipeg. At the time, he explained during his presentation, Lloyd Axworthy was President of the University of Winnipeg and Axworthy asked Benarroch whether the university should have a business school?
“I designed a vision,” Benarroch said, and eventually he became dean of the new Faculty of Business and Economics.
After 19 years at the U of W, Benarroch said he “interviewed for Dean at the Asper School of Business” at the University of Manitoba, which he became in 2011.
“The University of Manitoba is one of 50 research intensive universities in Canada,” Benarroch noted – something that was to prove a factor in his wanting to return here this past year.
In 2017, Benarroch became Provost and Vice-President Academic at Ryerson University.
For Benarroch, Ryerson was a good fit, he explained, because “it had a real focus on community engagement and entrepreneurship.”
As for moving to Toronto, Benarroch admitted that he and his wife, Kim (Bailey), “missed Winnipeg a lot – especially Kim.” Still, by the time they left Toronto this past summer, both their sons (Keenan and Aden) had also moved to Toronto, so returning to Winnipeg was a bit of a mixed blessing for Michael and Kim.
The story how Benarroch came to be president of the University of Manitoba is an interesting one.
When he applied for the position – in 2019, “I didn’t even tell my family I was applying,” he said. And, when he came to Winnipeg to interview for the position, he didn’t even tell his brothers he was here. (Al Benarroch is Executive Director of Jewish Child and Family Service, while Yosef Benarroch is Rabbi of the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation, although he also lives part of the year in Israel – during normal times. A fourth brother, Yamin, who is also a rabbi, lives in Vancouver).
Ultimately, Benarroch “was offered the position of president (of the U of M) in 2019,” he said, “then Covid hit and turned everything topsy turvy.”
At that point, the host of this particular Limmud session, Faye Rosenberg Cohen, asked Benarroch: “Did you plan out the career part?”
Benarroch responded: “I knew the presidency at the University of Manitoba was coming up. I kept my eye on it, but I thought that (moving to Toronto) was going to be my last move.
“There had to be a good reason for me to move from one institution to another.
“During my time at the Asper School I thought though that I really meshed well with the atmosphere at the University of Manitoba.”
As for Ryerson, Benarroch noted that the school began as a polytechnic institute and it still carries a very large imprint as a technical training school even though it is now a university.
“Ninety-five percent of the students have an experiential background – serving in apprenticeships” and work programs, while attending classes, Benarroch explained.
Part of Benarroch’s mandate while he was at Ryerson, he noted, was to “rebuild the faculty.”
“We went from 700 to over 900 in the three years I was there,” Benarroch stated.
“We hired quite a few younger academics who brought a lot of energy with them,” he added.
Another major change that Benarroch said he helped to foster was a concerted effort to hire more Indigenous instructors.
“When I arrived there were only six Indigenous professors at Ryerson,” he observed.
“Working with students and elders we launched a reconciliation process. We made Ryerson a place where Indigenous people would feel welcome,” including by “hiring 20 new Indigenous staff,” Benarroch said.
“We also brought in a fair bit of scholarship money for Indigenous students,” he added.
Yet, when the opportunity to take over as president of the University of Manitoba presented itself, Benarroch noted, that despite his having fit in well at Ryerson, he said that “you never want to leave a job, but if I hadn’t taken that opportunity I don’t think it would have come up again.”
Rosenberg Cohen asked Benarroch “How has being a religious Jew worked for you, first as a professor, then as an administrator?”
Benarroch replied: “As a prof, it was great. As an observant Jew I was always able to schedule my time so as to be able to observe Shabbat.”
Benarroch mentioned that one of the two sabbatical years he took as a professor was at the University of Haifa, which was of particular significance for him – being able to spend the year in Israel.
However, upon becoming an administrator, Benarroch suggested, “my schedule was not mine as much as it was in the past…At Ryerson, the president was an observant Muslim, so I always I had to make sure I was on campus on Fridays while he was attending prayers.”
Further, Benarroch noted, while the advent of Zoom during the pandemic has certainly enabled teaching and meetings to carry on, Zoom has, in fact, “made it harder to remain Shabbat observant.”
Prior to the pandemic, he explained, if he had a meeting or conference to attend – even on a Shabbat, “I would be staying in a hotel and I could attend a meeting – without taking any notes.”
Now, it’s impossible to participate in a Zoom session during Shabbat, he said – and since the workday seems to have expanded to include almost any hour of the day, Benarroch admitted that, as much as technology has allowed meetings to be held relatively easily, it has presented problems for him having to decide between his obligations as a university president and his religious observance.
As for some of the other more noticeable effects that the pandemic has had on his role as president at the U of M, Benarroch said: “I have four staff members in my office; I’ve seen one of them in person.”
Benarroch told the Limmud audience that, prior to assuming his new role, he read a book offering advice on “how to be a university president”.
(Rosenberg Cohen asked the question that was probably on everyone else’s minds at that point: Are there enough people in the world who would be in the position that they were interested in becoming a university president that it would be worth it to write a book about that subject?)
In any event, Benarroch said that this particular book did offer two really good pieces of advice:
1. Don’t make a major decision during your first six months in the new position;
and 2. Go out and meet as many people as you can off the bat.
(Obviously, the second piece of advice was thrown out the window when Benarroch returned to Winnipeg during the pandemic.)
In terms of how the pandemic will change the way university courses are taught even following the pandemic, Benarroch suggested that what is likely to occur is that professors will teach classes where some students attend in person while other students will take those same classes online.
“We’re also looking to have classes for Indigenous students up north” offered online, following on the success of Zoom teaching during the pandemic, he suggested.
While “there has been a lot of resistance to teaching online among academics,” Benarroch admitted, “students have been adapting.”
With reference to how many students are actually enrolled at the university this academic year, Benarroch observed that, while there are “fewer first year students at the University of Manitoba, there have been more students return for second, third, and fourth year” than in previous years.
“Enrolment is definitely up,” Benarroch said, “and we expect to see the majority of students return again in the fall.”
Rosenberg Cohen asked: “If I were a parent, thinking of spending money to send my child to a university somewhere, why would I spend all that money when they can take their classes online?”
Benarroch’s response was that, while virtual classes will certainly be a major part of whatever format universities eventually evolve into becoming, there is going to be a greater emphasis on “more participation, more research, more experiential. There are going to be more opportunities outside the classroom”, but they are going to be in person, not online.
As an example, Benarroch said he’s planning on creating a “student start-up zone”, in which students will start their own businesses.”
“It’s better to fail at a business when you’re 23 than when you’re 55,” Benarroch observed.
Rosenberg Cohen asked: “What are your hopes and dreams?”
Benarroch said, “Here at the University of Manitoba we have a tremendous testing capacity. Winnipeg could become a testing centre for vaccines,” for instance he suggested.
Continuing on the thread of what his hopes and dreams are, Benarroch said: “I’d like to see the University of Manitoba become a global leader in certain areas.
“I’d like to see the university become a racist-free zone.” (He noted that the previous president of the U of M, David Barnard, “had launched a task force on Equality, Diversity, and Integration.)
“We know we can’t stamp out racism, on campus,” Benarroch observed. “The question is how to deal with it.”
Someone in the Zoom audience wondered how one can maintain a balance between stamping out racism while still allowing free speech?
“We’re still a university. We are going to have debate and disagreement,” Benarroch said in response.
Someone else wondered “How does the university compensate for lab work that can’t get done?
Benarroch answered that “We allow 20 percent capacity in some spaces…We’ve also developed a way to hold some of the labs virtually.”
As well, Benarroch said that, for ten days in January, students in the Faculties of Nursing, Science, Architecture, Engineering, and Agriculture, were allowed back on to campus” to conduct lab work – under strict Covid protocols.
I asked a question along these lines (although the names of questioners were not given): Professors are having to spend more time than ever before finding funding for their programs. With the emphasis on practical, results-oriented programs, where will that leave programs that don’t necessarily have practical applications? (My question was not worded precisely that way, but it was along those general lines.)
Benarroch’s response was that “the university brings in just under $200 million a year in research money – the vast majority of which comes from the federal government.”
He added that he has two goals as far as where the money for research goes: to allow students who were doing research prior to Covid to continue doing that work; and to obtain additional money to keep university labs running.
Benarroch also noted that there is now a “massive reinvestment in science in the US. We have to remain competitive in how we pay faculty and how we keep up our labs.”
It seems quite evident, therefore, that Michael Benarroch is going to be preoccupied with finding ever new sources of funding for the university, while trying to retain whatever sources have been in place until now.
It seemed fitting, therefore, that one of his final observations was that “one of my mandates as president is to speak to government”.
Still, lost in all the discussion about funding and research was any reference to the less practical aspects of a university education. Of course, that’s a subject that’s been debated for a very long time. I just wonder where faculties such as Arts are going to end up with the even greater emphasis on “research” oriented programs.
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:
