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
Chesed Shel Emes is hiring
Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work – be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.
This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits. The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor.
For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088
Local News
Thoughts on Sid Green
By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.
Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:
Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.
At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.
Local News
Sid Green – famed lawyer, one of the first Jewish provincial cabinet ministers, and first director of BB Camp – passes at age 96
By BERNIE BELLAN Sid Green, whose name was well known in so many different circles in Manitoba, passed away on Sunday, June 7, at the age of 96.
Green was perhaps best known as one of three Jewish Members of the Legislature who became cabinet ministers in the first ever NDP government in Manitoba, which came to power in 1969 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer. (The other two Jewish members who became cabinet ministers were the late Saul Cherniack and the late Saul Miller.)
Green, who had first been elected as an MLA in 1966 representing the riding of Inkster, led a challenge to then-NDP leader Russ Paulley in 1968, which eventually led to Paulley resigning as leader. The subsequent leadership race saw Green, who was only 39 at the time, facing off against a 32-year-old Ed Schreyer.
Although Green and Schreyer were later to part ways over a number of issues – especially over the issue of aid to private schools, Green and Schreyer were actually good friends.
In fact, Ed Schreyer, who is now 90, spoke at Green’s funeral, which was held Tuesday, June 9, at the Chesed Shel Emes (with interment following at the Hebrew Sick Benefit Cemetery).
Schreyer told some humourous stories about his and Sid’s competition for the NDP leadership back in 1969. Although the two were rivals they agreed occasionally to share expenses along the way as they toured various Manitoba locations, including one night in a hotel in Flin Flon (or it may have been somewhere else; I wasn’t taking notes at the funeral.) Regardless, they agreed to share a room that night but, as Schreyer recalled, it had to have “two beds.”
Another time during that race, when they were somewhere in western Manitoba, they both received a call from someone in a place on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. (Again, I don’t remember which location Schreyer said it was.) The caller said they both had to get there soon because there was going to be a crowd of several hundred people gathered for some other event – and it would have been a perfect time to do some politicking.
But, as they pointed out to the caller, that location was 250 kilometres away and they couldn’t possibly drive there on time – so they both agreed to hire a float plane to fly them there. Unfortunately, that was a very windy day, Schreyer noted, and the plane wasn’t able to land close enough to shore for the both of them to wade in. Instead they decided to jump off the plane’s pontoon – landing up to their armpits in water. They bravely went to meet the assembled crowd – in their soaking wet suits.
Green had a long career as an MLA, being elected to the Manitoba Legislature four times: in 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977. Eventually he broke completely with the NDP and, along with fellow NDP MLA Ben Hanuschak, started a new party, called the Manitoba Progressive Party, in 1981, which failed abysmally.
I remember well how captivating a speaker Sid Green was when he was campaigning in 1981. One story that he told several times to different audiences went along these lines: After the NDP first formed government in 1969 – much to the surprise of almost everyone back then, Green was often called upon to speak at different venues because he was such a powerful orator.
One time he was somewhere in rural Manitoba and before he was called up to the podium to deliver his remarks, the person who was introducing Green said to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce to you the ‘Green Minister.'”
Not missing a beat, Sid took to the podium and said something along the following lines to the audience: “My first appointment to Cabinet was as Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Resources. Well, I little knew about energy, even less about mines, and nothing at all about natural resources. So the title “the Green Minister” is an apt one.”
In his early years, Sid Green was a very active member of the YMHA on Albert Street, serving as president of the house council for several years. A dedicated athlete, Green competed in basketball and volleyball at the Y. At the age 50 he took up ice hockey – and was known for his fierce competitiveness. He was to serve on the board of directors of the YMHA for many years, right up until its closing in 1997.
Green was also the quarterback for the University of Manitoba law school football team during the early 1950s – and led them to two school championships. In a 2019 interview I conducted with Green about his early years at the YMHA, he noted that he was the only 5’6″ 150 pound quarterback in the inter-faculty league.
In 1954 Green became the first director of BB Camp, which had just moved to Town Island from Sandy Hook.
In 1955, Green graduated from the U of M law school, winning the gold medal in law that year.
He went on to become one of Manitoba’s most successful labour lawyers, subsequently pairing withfamed labour lawyer, Leon Mitchell, later to be joined by Sam Minuk (who was to become a provincial court judge) in what became the firm of Mitchell, Green & Minuk.
During his time as a lawyer, Green often represented employers – which might seem a little surprising for someone who such a staunch NDPer. But Green was staunchly opposed to entrenching laws such as anti-scab legislation or secret ballot voting to unionize. He thought it important to represent any client, including employers engaged in disputes with unions, no matter how much he might have disagreed with that client’s position, and because he was so skilful in arguing a case, he was much sought after by employers to represent them in labour disputes.
He was so respected as a lawyer, moreover, that he was often asked to represent other lawyers in cases before the courts.
Green was also very pro-Israel and extremely proud of his Jewish roots. Although not a religious man, during his many years at the Y – first on Albert Street, then later on Hargrave, Green was involved in developing many Jewish cultural programs.
In days to come we will have much more about the life of Sid Green. In the meantime, if you want to watch a video interview I did with Sid about his experiences at the Y on Albert Street, you can go to Sid Green reminisces.
Sid Green was predeceased by his wife Shleema in 2009 and is survived by his five children: Arthur, MIndy, Cathy, Sharon, and Marty, as well as 15 grandchildren.
For more about Sid Green’s career, read Grant Mitchell’s eulogy, which was delivered at the Meal of Remembrance following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9: Grant Mitchell on Sid Green
