Local News
JNF Canada loses appeal to retain charitable status—days before a deadline to disburse remaining assets
By ELLEN BESSNER (Canadian Jewish News) November 10, 2024 Jewish National Fund of Canada has lost its first major legal battle to stop the tax department’s revocation of its charitable status, which came into effect three months ago.
Late in the afternoon of Friday, Nov. 8, a Federal Court judge dismissed JNF Canada’s application for a judicial review—and the judge also dismissed a request for an injunction to force the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to remove the official revocation notice that was printed in the Canada Gazette on Aug. 10.
Printing that notice triggered a series of steps JNF Canada was ordered to take under the Income Tax Act rules regarding revoked charities.
Firstly, it could no longer issue tax receipts for charitable donations made by Canadian supporters to fund a portfolio of social service projects in Israel.
Secondly, it was also required to wind down operations that date back to 1967—during which time the charity fundraised in Canada to support tree planting and other work in Israel. The CRA gives revoked charities the option of trying to disperse its remaining assets (JNF Canada’s asserts were stated as about $31 million in 2023) by giving them to another approved charity.
JNF Canada was also instructed to file a special form and remit a cheque to the tax department to pay what is known as a revocation tax. This amount is 100 percent of its remaining holdings after calculating the fair market value of the assets and money the charity had left, once all debts are paid. (The amount could be further reduced should the assets be legally given to a qualified donee.)
The deadline for that tax payment is Nov. 13, according to a letter the CRA sent to the now-former charity in mid-August.
The judge’s ruling came 24 hours after JNF Canada lawyers argued their case via video conference on Nov. 7, alongside lawyers for the Department of Justice, representing the Minister of National Revenue.
JNF Canada asked for a motion to reverse the publication of the Aug. 10 notice, which would save the organization from forced closure.
In her 17-page written decision, Justice Allyson Whyte Nowak explained why she dismissed the appeal. She ruled that her court was the wrong place for the charity to try to seek relief, because the Income Tax Act specifically designated the Federal Court of Appeal as the correct venue for such cases. Earlier court cases have established this fact, she wrote.
Justice Whyte Nowak did acknowledge that JNF Canada’s lawyers are raising a “novel issue,” but said it must be left up to the Federal Court of Appeal—or even Parliament—to correct any gaps in the inner workings of the CRA’s revocation process.
The day before the judge’s decision was released, JNF Canada issued a statement about how it will “never stop fighting for our community and our mission.”
“We stood our ground, and our lawyer made a compelling case in our defense [sic], arguing for procedural fairness, legitimate expectations, and the rule of law,” JNF Canada CEO Lance Davis and the revoked charity’s president Nathan Disenhouse announced together on Nov. 7.
JNF Canada has not commented publicly since learning it had lost this legal appeal. A video conference briefing for supporters has been scheduled for 8 p.m. tonight (Nov. 10), in the evening when JNF Canada’s annual Negev Dinner gala for supporters had been scheduled in Toronto, before its cancellation.
Rally for Humanity, a Sunday afternoon event at Nathan Phillips Square in downtown Toronto—which will feature speakers from Muslim, Hindu, Christian and Catholic organizations in alliance with 13 different Jewish community groups—also lists JNF Canada as a sponsor.
‘Nearly impossible to resurrect the charity’: CFO
JNF Canada’s chief financial officer Edit Rosenstein, in an affidavit submitted to the court on Oct. 30, outlined the impact of the Aug. 10 revocation.
“As we will not have the necessary funds, a total of 31 charitable projects will need to be stopped, which will have a huge impact on the vulnerable populations we serve.”
The affidavit claimed 48 employees would be terminated, with JNF Canada obliged to make severance payments. Four contractors will have their contracts terminated, with JNF Canada liable for the breaches. And other vendor contracts will also be terminated “resulting in penalties to JNF and exposure to further claims for breach of contract,” explained Rosenstein.
“If JNF is forced to shut down, I believe it will be nearly impossible to resurrect the organization, even if it is successful in its appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal,” Rosenstein’s affidavit said.
A separate court document from JNF Canada’s legal team added another consequence should the Federal Court not reverse the CRA’s revocation. The court was told it will result in further irreparable harm such as “the Applicant losing its chance to salvage its reputation.”
CRA explains the revocation and next steps
The CRA told The CJN on Friday it does not normally comment on specific court cases involving taxpayers, due to confidentiality clauses in the Income Tax Act. However, an email from spokesperson Nina Ioussoupova clarified why revoked charities must pay a revocation tax.
“The purpose of this tax is to ensure that charitable property is applied to charitable use,” she said, adding that the remaining assets include all income and gifts made to a revoked charity during its wind-down period.
In the JNF Canada case, the CEO Lance Davis told The CJN in an earlier interview in August that the charity continued to receive donations from supporters after the revocation, even though tax receipts could not be issued.
Two months ago, JNF Canada launched a public relations effort to lobby Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and national revenue minister Marie Claude-Bibeau to intervene on the file and reverse the revocation. Supporters were asked to donate money that would go to plant trees in areas of northern Israel where Hezbollah rocket attacks have burned forests.
The revoked charity vowed to send thank-you cards to the two federal politicians, which would advise them of trees being planted in their names—and also urging them to support JNF Canada’s cause.
How did JNF Canada end up here?
July 2024 brought the first public word from JNF Canada of its decade-long dispute with the tax agency. JNF Canada announced that it had been “blindsided” by the CRA decision it would be moving to shut the charity down, after a confidential 2014 CRA audit painted a harsh picture of its non-compliance with tax rules. JNF Canada vowed to fight any revocation through the courts, and immediately filed an appeal July 24, to the Federal Court of Appeal. A parallel appeal was filed to the Federal Court soon after.
The agency’s findings in the audit ranged from where the charity’s books and records had been kept in 2011 and 2012 (mostly in Israel, which was a no-no), to what language the paperwork and receipts were kept in (mostly in Hebrew, which is not illegal but makes work difficult for auditors), to the conclusion that JNF Canada’s founding charitable purposes of relieving poverty in Israel by paying the salaries of indigent labourers, were not being met.
Another major issue was that because of missing paperwork and superficial oversight on the ground in Israel, it was felt the Montreal-based JNF Canada hadn’t been in control of or directing its own operations overseas. CRA believed the charity was acting merely as a funnel of money to the Jerusalem-based agency, the Jewish National Fund/Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, which ran the projects.
A further red flag for auditors were several projects in 2011 and 2012 that benefited the Israel Defence Forces, such as construction of buildings and green areas on IDF military bases. Registered charities are not permitted to support a foreign military financially, under Canadian laws. Some other projects were located in the West Bank and on other disputed land, the CRA found, something which Canada’s foreign policy frowns on.
JNF Canada disagreed with the CRA’s view of that last category—and still does. But in 2019, the charity assured the public that it had stopped funding both kinds of projects after 2016, in order to comply with CRA requirements in good faith.
The CRA officially informed the charity in August 2019 that it still wasn’t satisfied with JNF Canada’s efforts to come into compliance, and intended to revoke its charitable status.
Three months later, in November 2019, JNF Canada filed an objection with the CRA’s in-house appeals branch. That move put the revocation process on hold until the objection was reviewed.
The review by the agency’s appeal team took about four years.
In documents submitted to the Federal Court as part of the latest hearing, the CRA acknowledged the lengthy time it took. However, it blames the delay partly on “disruptions” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, when in person meetings were cancelled, and when many federal workers switched to remote offices and worked from home. But the CRA also contends it was JNF Canada’s fault the review was held up when the charity filed an Access to Information request seeking confidential CRA documents about this dispute, which caused more delays.
The CRA finished its review of JNF Canada’s objection in 2023, and told the charity it still was planning to proceed with revocation of its charitable status due to the “repeated and serious non-compliance” with the Income Tax Act.
The now-revoked charity has publicly slammed the tax agency for repeatedly refusing to meet with them during the process to discuss concrete suggestions for improving things, such as adopting a new, acceptable charitable purpose. JNF’s Canada’s CEO Lance Davis told The CJN Daily this August that his team has made many internal changes in recent years to come into compliance, and as a result were now “running a tight ship.”
On June 26, 2024, the charity received a further confirmation letter of the CRA’s 2019 Notice of Intent to Revoke.
JNF Canada decried the decision, blamed the department for being procedurally unfair, even biased, and accused tax officials of caving in to anti-Israel activist groups—such as Independent Jewish Voices—which have long been pressuring the government to shut pro-Israel charities such as JNF Canada down. JNF Canada officials have since pointed to internal CRA documents it obtained showing a 2017 meeting between anti-Israel activists and a senior director with the revenue agency.
Procedural fairness disputed by JNF Canada lawyers
JNF Canada lawyers Adam Aptowitzer and Elizbeth Egberts of KPMG told the court this past Thursday that the CRA had given JNF Canada written assurances—dating back as far back as 2019—it would not pull the trigger by having the revocation notice published yet in the Canada Gazette.
Aptowitzer argued this assurance included a promise the CRA would wait until any objections or court appeals were dealt with. He told the court there was a long-standing internal CRA policy that gave audited charities as long as 90 days after the revocation notice was sent out to file an appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal before publication of the revocation.
Aptowitzer told the court that JNF Canada felt the 90-day policy used in 2019 was actually a “commitment” that “had created a legitimate expectation” of how things were going to be handled in 2024.
The lawyers submitted copies of an internal CRA briefing note from May 2024 stating no publication of the revocation notice would happen if JNF managed to submit its appeal in time to the Federal Court of Appeal, which it did on July 24, 2024.
Nevertheless, the CRA went ahead and had the revocation notice published on Aug. 10, which was 30 days after that final confirmation letter was sent out.
JNF Canada also felt it should have been clearly informed that CRA 2019 policy had been changed, since had it been informed about the shorter deadline, the charity would likely have gone much earlier to the Federal Court of Appeal to try to block the publication, before it was too late.
For its part, CRA lawyer Linsey Rains told the court JNF Canada should have been smart enough to figure out the previous, 90-day timeline process wasn’t guaranteed any longer.
“[JNF Canada] is a sophisticated organization and there is sophisticated counsel as well,” Rains said Thursday.
She reminded the judge that under the tax code, the CRA doesn’t have to wait for the final outcome of legal appeals to be exhausted through the courts, and the CRA can publish a revocation in the Canada Gazette after 30 days, as was the case here.
Lawyers for the government argued the tax department was acting to protect the tax base, and wasn’t required to give JNF Canada its own personal treatment and notice.
“Counsel… was told that [the 90-day waiting period in place back in 2019] assurance wasn’t necessarily guaranteed this time around,” said Rains. “The policy changed and it can change and the reason it changed is… the Minister’s statutory duty to publish the revocation.”
While the 90-day policy was followed for many revocation cases before and since 2019-2020, the court heard that, in the last few years, the agency has moved to the much speedier revocation: 30 days.
Moves made to protect taxpayers: CRA
“The CRA now has a risk-based approach towards compliance in the charitable sector,” according to senior CRA official Melissa Shaughnessy in a written affidavit submitted to the court in advance of the hearing.
She said it will cost the Canadian government $4.6 billion in 2024 to give tax deductions to people and corporations who donate money to charities. So, the CRA wants to make sure the charitable sector operates according to the law. That is why it moved more quickly on the JNF Canada case.
“The decision to proceed with revocation now, despite the Organization’s appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal, is to stop the continued flow of tax-receipted donations going overseas to fund the non-charitable activities of a non-charitable third party,” Shaughnessy wrote, referring to the JNF’s partner in Israel.
“The Organization has publicly stated that it will continue receipting donations and distributing funds. Awaiting the conclusion of the legal appeal process could take over a year which would enable the Organization to continue to send millions of dollars in tax-receipted donations to fund foreign non-charitable programs were it not revoked.”
While the CRA acknowledged it had received assurances from JNF Canada that funds were not being used in IDF projects or the West Bank since 2016, the tax agency pointed out the charity didn’t furnish proof to back up this promise.
‘Irreparable harm’ due to revocation
As part of its case claiming irreparable harm from revocation, JNF Canada argued in court that Israeli children with cancer are being jeopardized by the CRA’s revocation. Aptowitzer, one of the JNF Canada lawyers, said the organization promised to help fund the renovation of a building on the grounds of Sheba Medical Centre’s Tel ha-Shomer site near Tel Aviv, where families of young cancer patients are housed while their kids are undergoing lengthy oncology treatments.
The facility is operated by the Israel-based Rachashei Lev charity. Since 2007, the building has offered 20 apartments to temporarily house the families. Aptowizer told the court JNF Canada made an obligation to fund this renovation project.
“The facility is currently turning away sick children,” he said, and the court was told an estimated ten patients have had to be turned away to date, due to the renovations underway. “There is harm to unknown people yet to be diagnosed.”JNF Canada committed $292,500 to fund the renovations, according to the affidavit submitted by CFO Edit Rosenstein.
According to the JNF Canada’s website, the reason the children’s house is being renovated is because since Oct. 7, 2023, the hospital has now commandeered the 20 apartments also to accommodate an influx of Israeli survivors’ families, including next of kin of severely wounded Israeli soldiers who were injured in battle.
“With the increased demand from families of wounded soldiers, they need to quickly renovate and split the current apartments into two thereby doubling the number of families served for a total of 40 apartments,” explains JNF Canada on its website. “Each suite will consist of a bedroom, a kitchenette, private bathroom and a balcony. Renovations include new flooring, electrical, paint, plumbing, replacement of doors and installation of more countertops and sinks.”
JNF Canada’s website adds that donations are required before the Canadian project can send money.
Donations almost completely stopped: CFO
In her affidavit, Rosenstein revealed that after her charity’s status was revoked in August this year, JNF hasn’t been receiving the expected flow of donations.
“As a result, donations to JNF [Canada] have almost completely stopped,” Rosenstein said. “Without the ability to raise funds, or draw on assets, JNF will have no choice but to cease its charitable operations and terminate the employment of its employees.”
CRA lawyer Linsey Rains told the court she wondered about JNF Canada’s claim of irreparable harm and argued it should not factor into the judge’s decision.
Firstly, Rains asked the court why payments couldn’t be sent to the hospital project, regardless of the revocation. She also suspected JNF Canada wasn’t the only organization donating to this Israel-based children’s house project. Rachashei Lev has several fundraising chapters outside of Israel—including in Teaneck, New Jersey, and London, England.
JNF Canada annulment request explained
Even after JNF Canada received the recent June 26 confirmation that its charitable status was going to be revoked, the charity proposed what CEO Lance Davis has previously called an “off-ramp.”
Lawyers asked the CRA on July 12 to pause the revocation, and instead act to annul JNF Canada’s 57-year status as a registered charity.
An annulment would help avoid paying the revocation tax, and would also allow JNF Canada donors to keep the tax receipts they’d been issued prior to the granting of the annulment.
In court, CRA lawyer Linsey Rains told the judge the federal revenue minister didn’t reject the idea, but rather put a pin on the suggestion while the current dispute over revocation plays out in the courts.
The head of the CRA’s charity directorate, Sharmila Khare, wrote on July 24 to David Stephens—another lawyer representing JNF Canada—confirming that the annulment request would be “held in abeyance.”
Rains suggested JNF Canada tried to keep its non-compliance problems out of the public eye. She told the court JNF Canada wanted to “keep it quiet” and “close to their chest” hoping instead, they could get an annulment, and avoid paying the revocation tax in the process.
Briefing notes prepared by CRA staff in April and May 2024 which were submitted to the Federal Court ahead of the hearing show JNF Canada being very concerned about the dispute being made public. The CRA notes also show the agency itself expected to receive additional attention because of its timing.
“Consideration should be given to raising the risk level on this to high, when and if an appeal is filed at the FCA,” the CRA briefing document said. “The Organization is a prominent charity with overseas operations in Israel and given the current Israel/Palestine conflict, this revocation could be contentious for the CRA. There has been recent media attention on charities potentially funding activities related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The authors of the briefing note cited nine published articles, including one published by The Canadian Jewish News last October. However, five of the pieces were negative coverage citing anti-Israel sources— including one penned by Yves Engler, a prominent anti-Zionist from Montreal. A cited story from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs begins by saying the U.S. branch of Jewish National Fund supported “Israel’s occupation by financing illegal settlement building on Palestinian land.”
What’s next for JNF Canada?
Right now, at least two significant questions remain unanswered.
Have any JNF Canada funds been disbursed to new charities, who could then legally send the money to JNF’s partners in Israel?
And, can the Nov. 13 filing deadline for the revocation tax be met?
JNF Canada’s communications have emphasized it will be left with no funds to pay for court challenges to fight what it feels has been unfair treatment by the CRA.
Despite losing the first court case on Nov. 8, there is still a second appeal in the pipeline—this one was filed with the Federal Court of Appeal on July 24. However, court documents show that any Federal Court of Appeal hearing won’t likely be scheduled any earlier than May 20, 2025.
There could also be other legal avenues, such as an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada—and also to the federal Tax Court.
JNF Canada has two major events scheduled in the coming week, before the Nov. 13 payment deadline. It’s not known if they will be impacted by the appeal being dismissed.
The annual Negev Dinner in Toronto, honouring philanthropist Jeff Rubenstein, was originally scheduled for tonight (Sunday, Nov. 10) before JNF Canada decided to cancel it in September—former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett had been booked as keynote speaker.
But an event was subsequently scheduled for Nov. 11 featuring a panel discussion on the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election as it relates to Israel, featuring former IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, with journalist Jonathan Kay serving as moderator.
Two additional JNF Canada supporter events in Toronto remain scheduled for Nov. 21 and Dec. 2.
JNF Canada did not cancel its Negev Gala event in Ottawa, scheduled for Nov. 13, honouring Lisa MacLeod, the outgoing Ontario PC MPP for Nepean. Political consultant Warren Kinsella was later added as keynote speaker.
Proceeds from the Ottawa dinner are going to build a resilience centre for people living with PTSD in Sderot, with charitable donations administered by the Israel Magen Fund of Canada, rather than JNF Canada.
Local News
Winnipegger liver recipient Mark Kagan now in need of new kidney
By MYRON LOVE About a year ago, Winnipegger Mark Kagan reached out to the Jewish community through the pages of the Jewish Post (and jewishpostandnews.ca) in his efforts to find a liver donor. At the time, his liver and his health were rapidly failing and he was quickly running out of time.
Back then, the former Best Western Hotels manager – who is in his mid-60s – reported that there is no cure for his condition (a non-alcohol related rare liver disease called Nodular Regenerative Hyperplasia).
“My only hope for survival is a liver transplant,” he said.
The good news is that he was able to get a liver transplant this past April in Toronto and his recovery went well. Within a short time, he was able to eat normally and resume exercising. He spent three weeks post-op in the hospital in Toronto and another two weeks at the Health Sciences Centre before being cleared to go home again.
The bad news was that once his liver failed, in turn, it caused his kidneys to fail. “My doctors originally hoped that my kidney function would return on its own once the liver was transplanted,” he notes.
That didn’t happen. Now Kagan has to have dialysis three times a week while trying to find a kidney donor.
On Tuesday, December 9, Kagan’s quest for a kidney donor will be the focus of a program at the Rady JCC hosted by Renewal Canada, a Toronto based organization that works within the Jewish community to find kidney donors and facilitate transplants. The event – that begins at 7:30 pm – is described as a Kidney Donation Awareness and Swab Drive with the hope that a donor can be found for Kagan. Speakers will include Rabbis Carnie and Kliel Rose – both discussing the mitzvah of organ donation, Penny Kravetsky representing Renewal Canada, and past donor Esther Dick, as well as Kagan.
Kagan adds a special thank you to Rebbitzen Bracha Altein for her role in directing his mother to Renewal Canada.
Comments that Kagan made last year in the Post article still ring true:
“Your support means everything to me and my family,” Kagan said. “Even if you cannot donate, sharing my story could connect me with someone who can. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider helping in this crucial time.”
Interested readers can register by going online at https://www.renewalcanada.org/
Local News
Manitoba trained Jewish physician now living in US laments state of medical care in Canada
By BERNIE BELLAN (Nov. 27, 2025) Introduction: We received a comment this morning from a former Winnipegger who had something to say about the state of medical care in Manitoba. Once you read her message you will be able to read an exchange of emails into which we entered that give more information about her:
I’m a physician who graduated from the University of Manitoba medical school (class of 1999). After training, I moved to Arizona to practice as a gastroenterologist. During my training in Winnipeg, I was always told how bad the American health care system was. I am here to tell you that this is incorrect. The poorest American who can’t afford health insurance and qualifies for state funded insurance has better health care than ALL of you.
I work in private practice. Yes, I’m busy. Yes, it takes many weeks to see me. However , if a family physician calls me and asks me to see a patient urgently, I will. If a patient needs a procedure urgently, I will get it done. If a patient needs to speak to me after my office hours or on weekends and holidays, I call them back. I am not the exception to the rule. I am practicing standard of care.
My niece has been in an out of the children’s emergency room (in Winnipeg) for several weeks because of kidney stones. She has been told numerous times by numerous physicians that her case is not “urgent”. Apparently, you can only get care if you become “urgent”. Urgent means that you are really sick and have developed complications. So, my niece has to end up in the ICU with sepsis (infection) and in renal failure for her to have the procedure she needs? What she was given was a prescription for morphine. Great, getting a teenager hooked on opiods as a way to treat kidney stones , that’s the answer? Her urologist told her mother (my sister) that the system is broken. Finally, an honest answer but in no way a solution.
The American health care system is not perfect but it’s significantly better than what you have. I’m appreciative of my excellent training I received in Winnipeg however, I could never work in your broken system as now I know better.
Good luck to you all.
Dr. Elisa Faybush
In response to Dr. Faybush’s comment, we sent her the following email:
Hi Dr. Faybush,
I read your message about the state of health care in Manitoba with great interest.
I wear 2 hats: I’m both an editor at the Jewish Post newspaper, also the publisher of a website called jewishpostandnews.ca
I would consider printing your message, but I’m curious: Is there a particular reason that you sent it to a Jewish publication?
For instance, are you Jewish yourself? It might put things into some sort of context which would explain why the letter was sent to us – or perhaps you sent the same message to other publications.
It would be helpful if you could elaborate on why you sent your message to us.
Regards,
Bernie Bellan
Dr. Faybush responded:
Hi Bernie
Yes I’m Jewish. Raised in garden city. My grand parents were Ann and Nathan Koslovsky
I sent the letter to the Winnipeg free press and was contacted for an interview but they wanted to interview my sister as well. Unfortunately my sister didn’t want to be interviewed.
I read your publication on line regularly to keep up with the Jewish community in Winnipeg.
My family still lives in Winnipeg and I was home this past summer for my niece’s graduation
I will always consider Winnipeg my home.
I’m so frustrated with the Canadian health care system and wanted the people from Winnipeg to know they deserve better.
Elisa Faybush
We wrote back:
Thanks for the speedy reply Elisa. I’ll add something to the end of your message about your roots.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree totally with you about the state of health care in Canada. It’s a sacred cow but this cow should be put out to pasture.
She responded:
100% agree
Feel free to call if you would like
(number redacted)
We wrote:
Well, if you’d like me to do a profile of you – which we do quite often of doctors who left Manitoba, usually written by Gerry Posner, I’d be glad to do that.
But it would be a full-on profile, not just a lament for the Canadian health care system. By the way, I searched your name in the History of Jewish Physicians in Manitoba, which was authored by Eva Wiseman a few years ago. I didn’t see your name in there, but one of the criteria for inclusion in that book was someone must have practised in Manitoba for at least 5 years after graduating. I assume you left before 5 years had elapsed. Is that right?
Elisa responded:
You are correct. I left after residency to complete my fellowship in gastroenterology in Arizona and never left.
I went to garden city collegiate graduated in 1991 and then went on to complete my bachelor of science at the u of w.
I’m not looking for a profile but thank you for the offer. I just need to express my opinion and I appreciate you giving me an outlet to do so.
We wrote:
When did you graduate from medical school?
Elisa responded:
1999
We wrote:
And did you go to Arizona immediately upon graduating?
Elisa responded:
After graduating u of m medical school in 1999 I completed my internal medicine residency at the u of m from 1999-2002. I then left to go to the university of Arizona in Tucson for my gi fellowship from 2002-2005. I then moved to Phoenix and started private practice. I just completed 20 yrs in practice this year.
We wrote:
ok great – I think it’s important to provide a fuller description of your career to lend some further significance to your original comment. By the way, you must have studied under Chuch Bernstein – right?
She responded:
Yes. He is the reason I did my fellowship in the USA. He encouraged me to do so. He probably thought I would come back to work in Winnipeg like he did!
We wrote:
He’s a great guy. I bet I know a lot of your schoolmates from med school. It’s too bad the Canadian medical system has alienated so many talented people. I still have lots of friends who were doctors and who still live here, but they’re all so embittered about our system.
Elisa responded:
I never practiced in Winnipeg but I hear about the problems with it as family members have to navigate through this broken system.
If I lived and practiced in Winnipeg I would know the doctors and specialists that I could call to help my family members but I’ve been gone for so long I don’t have any relationships with anyone anymore:
Local News
Simkin Centre shows accumulated deficit of $779,426 for year end March 31, 2025 – but most personal care homes in Winnipeg are struggling to fund daily operations
By BERNIE BELLAN The last (November 20) issue of the Jewish Post had as an insert a regular publication of the Simkin Centre called the “Simkin Star.”
Looking through the 16 pages of the Simkin Star I noticed that three full pages were devoted to financial information about the Simkin Centre, including the financial statement for the most recent fiscal year (which ended March 31, 2025). I was rather shocked to see that Simkin had posted a deficit of $406,974 in 2025, and this was on top of a deficit of $316,964 in 2024.
In the past month, I had also been looking at financial statements for the Simkin Centre going back to 2019. I had seen that Simkin had been running surpluses for four straight years – even through Covid.
But seeing the most recent deficit led me to wonder: Is the Simkin Centre’s situation unusual in its having run quite large deficits the past two years? I know that, in speaking with Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre, over the years, that she had often complained that not only Simkin, but many other personal care homes do not receive sufficient funding from the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.
At the same time, an article I had read by Free Press Faith writer John Longhurst, and which was published in the August 5, 2025 issue of the Free Press had been sticking in my brain because what Longhurst wrote about the lack of funding increases by the WRHA for food costs in personal care homes deeply troubled me.
Titled “Driven by faith, frustrated by funding,” Longhurst looked at how three different faith-based personal care homes in Winnipeg have dealt with the ever increasing cost of food.
One sentence in that article really caught my attention, however, when Longhurst wrote that the “provincial government, through the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, has not increased the amount of funding it provides for care-home residents in Manitoba since 2009.”
Really? I wondered. Is that true?
As a result, I began a quest to try and ascertain whether what Longhurst claimed was the case was actually the case.
For the purpose of this article, personal care homes will be referred to as PCHs.
During the course of my gathering material for this article I contacted a number of different individuals, including: Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre; the CEO of another personal care home who wished to remain anonymous; Gladys Hrabi, who wears many hats, among them CEO of Manitoba Association for Residential and Community Care Homes for Everyone ( MARCHE), the umbrella organization for 24 not-for-profit personal care homes in Manitoba; and a representative of the WRHA.
I also looked at financial statements for six different not-for-profit PCHs in Winnipeg. (Financial statements for some, but not all PCHs, are available to look at on the Province of Manitoba website. Some of those financial statements are for 2025 while others are for 2024. Still, looking at them together provides a good idea how comparable revenue and expenses are for different PCHs.)
How personal care homes are funded
In order to gain a better understanding of how personal care homes are funded it should be understood that the WRHA maintains supervision of 39 different personal care homes in Winnipeg, some of which are privately run but most of which are not-for-profit. The WRHA provides funding for all personal care homes at a rate of approximately 75% of all operational funding needs and there have been regular increases in funding over the years for certain aspects of operations (including wages, benefits, and maintenance of the homes) but, as shall be explained later, increases in funding for food have not been included in those increases.
The balance of funding for PCHs comes from residential fees (which are set by the provincial government and which are tied to income); occasional funding from the provincial government to “improve services, technology, and staffing within personal care homes,”; and funds that some PCHs are able to raise on their own through various means (such as the Simkin Centre Foundation).
But, in Longhurst’s article about personal care homes he noted that there are huge disparities in the levels of service provided among different homes.
He wrote: “Some of Winnipeg’s 37 personal-care homes provide food that is mass-produced in an off-site commercial kitchen, frozen and then reheated and served to residents.” (I should note that different sources use different figures for the number of PCHs in Winnipeg. Longhurst’s article uses the figure “37,” while the WRHA’s website says the number is “39.” My guess is that the difference is a result of three different homes operated together by the same organization under the name “Actionmarguerite.”)
How does the WRHA determine how much to fund each home?
So, if different homes provide quite different levels of service, how does the WRHA determine how much to fund each home?
For an answer, I turned to Gladys Hrabi of MARCHE, who gave me a fairly complicated explanation. According to Gladys, the “WRHA uses what’s called a global/median rate funding model. This means all PCHs—regardless of size, ownership, or actual costs—are funded at roughly the same daily rate per resident. For 2023/24, that rate (including the resident charge) was about $200+ (sorry I need to check with WRHA the actual rate) per resident day.”
But, if different residents pay different resident charges, wouldn’t that mean that if a home had a much larger number of residents who were paying the maximum residential rate (which is currently set at $37,000 per year) then that home would have much greater revenue? I wondered.
Laurie Cerqueti of the Simkin Centre provided me with an answer to that question. She wrote: “Residents at any pch pay a per diem based on income and then the government tops up to the set amount.” Thus, for the year ending March 31, 2025 residential fees brought in $5,150,657 for the Simkin Centre. That works out to approximately $27,000 per resident. I checked the financial statements for the five other PCHs in Winnipeg to which I referred earlier, and the revenue from residential fees was approximately the same per resident as what the Simkin Centre receives.
Despite large increases in funding by the WRHA for personal care homes in recent years, those increases have not gone toward food
I was still troubled by John Longhurst’s having written in his article that the “provincial government, through the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, has not increased the amount of funding it provides for care-home residents in Manitoba since 2009.”
These days, when you perform a search on the internet, AI provides much more detailed answers to questions than what the old Google searches would.
Thus, when I asked the question: “How much funding does the WRHA provide for personal care homes in Winnipeg?” the answer was quite detailed – and specific:
“The WRHA’S total long-term care expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 were approximately $632.05 million.” There are approximately 5,700 residents in personal care homes in Winnipeg. That figure of $632.05 million translates roughly into $111,000 per resident.
“The budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year included a $224.3 million overall increase to the WRHA for salaries, benefits, and other expenditures, reflecting a general increase in health-care investments.” (But, note that there is no mention of an increase for food expenditures.)
But, it was as a result of an email exchange that I had with Simkin CEO Laurie Cerqueti that I understood where Longhurst’s claim that there has been no increase in funding for care-home residents since 2009 came from.
Laurie wrote: “…most, if not all of the pchs are running a deficit in the area of food due to the increases in food prices and the government/wrha not giving operational funding increases for over 15 years.” Thus, whatever increases the WRHA has been giving have been eaten up almost entirely by salary increases and some additional hiring that PCHs have been allowed to make.
Longhurst’s article focused entirely on food operations at PCHs – and how much inflation has made it so much more difficult for PCHs to continue to provide nutritious meals. He should have noted, however, that when he wrote there has been “no increase in funding for care home residents since 2009,” he was referring specifically to the area of food.
As Laurie Cerqueti noted in the same email where she observed that there has been no increase in operational funding, “approximately $300,000 of our deficit was due to food services. I do not have a specific number as far as how much of the deficit is a result of kosher food…So really this is not a kosher food issue as much is it is an inflation and funding issue.
“Our funding from the WRHA is not specific for food so I do not know how much extra they give us for kosher food. I believe years ago there was some extra funding added but it is mixed in our funding envelope and not separated out.”
So, while the WRHA has certainly increased funding for PCHs in Winnipeg, the rate of funding increases has not kept pace with the huge increases in the cost of food, especially between 2023-2024.
As Laurie Cerqueti noted, in response to an email in which I asked her how the Simkin Centre is coping with an accumulated deficit of $779,426, she wrote, in part: “The problem is that the government does not fund any of us in a way that has kept up with inflation or other cost of living increases. If this was a private industry, no one would do business with the government to lose money. I know some pchs are considering out (sic.) of the business.”
A comparison of six different personal care homes
But, when I took a careful look at the financial statements for each of the personal care homes whose financial statements I was able to download from the Province of Manitoba website, I was somewhat surprised to see the huge disparities in funding that the WRHA has allocated to different PCHs. (How I decided which PCHs to look at was simply based on whether or not I was able to download a particular PCH’s financial statement. In most cases no financial statements were available even to look at. I wonder why that is? They’re all publicly funded and all of them should be following the same requirements – wouldn’t you think?)
In addition to the Simkin Centre’s financial statement (which, as I explained, was in the Simkin Star), I was able to look at financial statements for the following personal care homes: West Park Manor, Golden West Centennial Lodge, Southeast Personal Care Home, Golden Links Lodge, and Bethania Mennonite Personal Care Home.
What I found were quite large disparities in funding levels by the WRHA among the six homes, either in 2025 (for homes that had recent financial statements available to look at) or 2024 (for homes which did not have recent financial statements to look at.)
Here is a table showing the levels of funding for six different personal care homes in Winnipeg. Although information was not available for all homes for the 2025 fiscal year, the figures here certainly show that, while the WRHA has been increasing funding for all homes – and in some cases by quite a bit, the rate of increases from one home to another has varied considerably. Further, the Simkin Centre received the lowest percentage increase from 2024 to 2025.
Comparison of funding by the WRHA for 6 different personal care homes
We did not enter into this project with any preconceived notions in mind. We simply wanted to investigate how much funding there has been from the WRHA for personal care homes in Winnipeg in recent years.
As to why some PCHs received quite large increases in funding, while others received much smaller increases – the WRHA response to my asking that question was this: “Due to the nature and complexity of the questions you are asking regarding financial information about PCHs, please collate all of your specific questions into a FIPPA and we can assess the amount of time needed to appropriately respond.”
Gladys Hrabi of MARCHE, however, offered this explanation for the relatively large disparities in funding levels among different PCHs: “Because funding is based on the median, not actual costs, each PCH must manage within the same per diem rate even though their realities differ. Factors like building age, staffing structure, kitchen setup, and resident complexity all influence spending patterns.
“The difference you found (in spending between two particular homes that I cited in an email to Gladys) likely reflects these operational differences. Homes that prepare food on-site, accommodate specialized diets (cultural i.e. kosher), or prioritize enhanced dining experiences (more than 2 choices) naturally incur higher total costs. Others may use centralized food services or have less flexibility because of budget constraints.
“The current model doesn’t adjust for inflation, collective agreements, or true cost increases. This means many homes, especially MARCHE members face operating deficits and have to make tough choices about where to contain costs, often affecting areas like food, recreation, or maintenance. The large differences you see in food spending aren’t about efficiency —–they’re a sign that the current funding model doesn’t reflect the true costs of care.”
But some of the disparities in funding of different personal care homes really jump off the page. I noted, for instance, that of the six PCHs whose financial statements I examined, the levels of funding from WRHA for the 2024 fiscal year fell between a range of $63,341 per resident (at Golden Links Lodge) to $78,771 at the Simkin Centre – but there was one particular outlier: Southeast Personal Care Home, which received funding from the WRHA in 2024 at the rate of $98,321 per resident. Not only did Southeast Personal Care Home receive a great deal more funding per resident than the other five PCHs I looked at, it had a hefty surplus to boot.
I asked a spokesperson from the WRHA to explain how one PCH could have received so much more funding per capita than other PCHs, but have not received a response.
This brings me then to the issue of the Simkin Centre and the quite large deficit situation it’s in. Since readers might have a greater interest in the situation as it exists at the Simkin Centre as opposed to other personal care homes and, as the Simkin Centre has reported quite large deficits for both 2024 and 2025, as I noted previously, I asked Laurie Cerqueti how Simkin will be dealing with its accumulated deficit (which now stands at $779,426) going forward?
Now, as many readers may also know, I’ve been harping on the extra high costs incurred by Simkin as a result of its having to remain a kosher facility. It’s not my intention to open old wounds, but I was somewhat astonished to see how much larger the Simkin Centre’s deficit is than any other PCH for which I could find financial information.
From time to time I’ve asked Laurie how many of Simkin’s 200 residents are Jewish?
On November 10, she responded that “55% of residents” at Simkin are Jewish. That figure is consistent with past numbers that Laurie has cited over the years.
And, while Laurie claims that she does not know exactly how much more the Simkin Centre pays for kosher food, the increases in costs for kosher beef and chicken have outstripped the increases in costs for nonkosher beef and chicken. Here is what we found when we looked at the differences in prices between kosher and nonkosher beef and chicken: “Based on recent data and long-standing market factors, kosher beef and chicken prices have generally gone up more than non-kosher (conventional beef and chicken). Both types of meat have experienced significant inflation due to broader economic pressures and supply chain issues, but the kosher market has additional, unique cost drivers that amplify these increases.”
In the final analysis, while the WRHA has been providing fairly large increases in funding to personal care homes in Winnipeg, those increases have been eaten up by higher payroll costs and the costs of simply maintaining what is very often aging infrastructure. If the WRHA does not provide any increases for food costs, personal care homes will continue to be squeezed financially. They can either reduce the quality of food they offer residents or find other areas, such as programming, where they might be able to make cuts.
But, the situation at the Simkin Centre, which is running a much larger accumulated deficit than any other personal care home for which we could find financial information, places it in a very difficult position. How the Simkin Centre will deal with that deficit is a huge challenge. The only body that can provide help in a major way, not only for the Simkin Centre, but for all personal care homes within Manitoba, is the provincial government. Perhaps if you’re reading this you might want to contact your local MLA and voice your concerns about the lack of increased funding for food at PCHs.