Local News
RBC freezes client’s bank account by mistake – and keeps it frozen without explanation
By BERNIE BELLAN (June 14, 2024) What would you do if, one day, you tried to use your debit card to pay for something or to take a cash withdrawal – and the card didn’t work? But then, after contacting your bank to try and find out why that’s happening, you’re simply told your account is frozen – without any further explanation? And, only after deducing that the bank froze the account of the wrong individual, does the bank finally admit its error.
Such was the case recently with an RBC client who happened to be a relative of mine and who enlisted my help in trying to figure out why their account had been frozen by RBC.
On May 1 I was contacted by my relative asking for my help. They couldn’t understand why their debit card wasn’t working. They told me that their card had stopped working five days prior. (It should be explained this individual does not have sophisticated knowledge how to deal with a problem of this sort and they simply thought there was a glitch in using their card that would be corrected in short order by the bank.)
After several days of not being able to use their card, my relative explained, they had phoned RBC on April 30, but were not offered any explanation as to why their account had been frozen. They were told, however, that the matter was in the hands of a Vancouver branch of RBC. My relative was even further puzzled. They lived in Winnipeg and had never even been to Vancouver. What did their account being frozen have to do with a Vancouver branch of RBC, they wondered?
The day my relative contacted me, I told them to come over to my house and that I would try and get an RBC customer service representative on the phone to obtain some sort of explanation as to why their account had been frozen. After getting an RBC customer service representative on the phone and explaining who I was, I asked permission to listen in on the conversation between my relative and the RBC customer service representative. The customer service representative agreed to allow that, but during the course of the conversation they said they were not able to offer any information as to why the RBC client’s card had been frozen.
Both my relative and I were totally puzzled. RBC had frozen their account but would offer no explanation for why that had happened.
Later that day, however, my relative contacted me again to say that they wondered whether it was possible their account had been frozen by mistake because they had the same name as another relative? That other individual does live in Vancouver, so it began to make sense to me. I don’t know that individual well, but was able to contact them after getting their phone number from someone who knew them.
I phoned that person but just got their voice messaging, so I left a message asking them to call me. In a few minutes that individual did call me back and did say, not only that they had an RBC account, but that they had some legal issues related to debts (without going into specifics).
Immediately it occurred to me that my Winnipeg relative’s account had been frozen by mistake and that it was this Vancouver relative whose account was the one RBC had intended to freeze.
I phoned RBC back again and said that it was apparent RBC had frozen the account of the wrong individual. When I gave a detailed explanation of what evidently had happened, this time the RBC customer service representative told us to go down to the branch where my relative does their banking, where we would be met by a banking representative.
At the branch we met with a very nice RBC representative who said they had been brought up to speed as to what had happened. The bank representative explained that my relative’s account had been frozen as the result of a court order that had been issued in Vancouver to freeze the account of someone with the same name. The representative said that my relative could still not use their debit card to access cash, but the representative would be able to give them cash that they could use until their account was unfrozen.
At that time I suggested that what RBC had done was an outrageous mistake and that RBC ought to offer compensation to my relative. The branch representative said RBC was willing to waive bank fees for my relative for six months – apparently worth something in the order of $80 altogether.
The representative also gave me the name of the law firm that had applied for the court order that had led to the wrong account being frozen.
I contacted that law firm the same day and explained what had happened to a lawyer from the firm. The lawyer told me that the court order that had been applied for and had been issued by a court specifically gave the number of the bank account that was to be frozen. The lawyer sent me a copy of the bank order.
It was apparent that someone at RBC had made a huge mistake. They had ignored the order to freeze a specific account belonging to a specific RBC client and instead had frozen the account of a totally different RBC client who happened to have the same name!
When I discovered how egregious a mistake RBC had made – after reading the court order, I contacted the same RBC branch representative who had offered to freeze the fees on my relative’s account and said that my relative expected a lot more in compensation for such an outrageous mistake than simply having bank fees waived for six months.
On May 22, the RBC branch representative wrote in an email to me:
“Your request for compensation has also been escalated to our RBC client care department. They will reach out directly.”
On June 11 we contacted the branch representative to say that my relative had not heard anything from the client care department. On June 12 the branch rep wrote to me to say that an RBC client care representative had indeed attempted to contact my relative – both via phone and email. The phone number that was given in the email though was no longer in service and when we checked with our relative they said they hadn’t received an email.
On June 12 we emailed the RBC client care representative to ask them to attempt to contact our relative again. We did not hear back from that representative. To date our relative says they have not heard anything from the client care representative.
The upshot is RBC made a huge mistake and froze an account of the wrong individual – causing them distress and frustration, and only after we were able to figure out what had led to the wrong account being frozen, did RBC unfreeze the account. And, even though we asked for compensation over a month ago, no response has been received from RBC.
Update June 25: In a letter dated June 18, 2024 RBC client care representative Michelle Smith finally responded to the RBC client. In her letter, Ms. Smith wrote that the client “accepted the Branches (sic.) offer to waive the monthly fee on” her “RBC Advantage Banking Account for 6 months…for a total amount of $47.70…No further compensation will be provided.”
What Ms. Smith does not address in her letter, however, is the fact that when the RBC client attended her local branch to find out why her account had been frozen, she was told it was a result of an order by a BC court to freeze an account belonging to a client with the same name.
As noted in the story though, it was only after receiving a copy of the court order that had led to the freezing of the bank account from the lawyer who had applied for the court order did it become apparent that it wasn’t simply a mistake of freezing an account for the wrong person, it was also a mistake of ignoring the specific instruction on the court order to freeze an account with a specific number attached to it. It wasn’t just a mistake – it was gross incompetence on the part of an RBC employee. Yet Ms. Smith conveniently chooses to ignore that in her letter rejecting any further compensation to the client.
In her letter, Ms. Smith does invite the client to take the matter up with the RBC Client Complaints Appeal Office. If anything ensues from that we will update this post.
Local News
Simkin Centre to build new child care centre next to existing personal care home
(August 17, 2026) By BERNIE BELLAN A large crowd was on hand this morning in the Simkin Centre atrium to watch as representatives of the federal and provincial governments; Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre; donors, and representatives of donors all stood together to announce a new child-care centre to be built adjacent to the Simkin Centre personal care home.
The $17.6 million project will be funded by a combination of public and private money. Of the total cost, $4.5 million will be coming from a capital grant from the Canada-Manitoba child-care agreement, while the other $13.1 million will be coming from a combination of donations and grants.
Once completed, the new child-care centre, which will be called the Faye Vickar Lazer Early Learning Centre, will have 152 licensed spaces for children up to 12 years of age.
The centre will be operated by the Rady JCC. In a press release issued by the Rady JCC, it was noted that, “in total, the centre will provide care for 24 infants, 68 preschool-aged children, 30 nursery-aged children and 30 school-aged children, helping address the significant need for accessible, high-quality, and affordable childcare in Winnipeg.”
The release also noted that currently “The Rady JCC currently operates two early learning centres, the Kaufman Child Care Centre and David & Ruth Asper Early Learning Centre, and has a waitlist of more than 600 families. “
The centre itself will be part of a new wing of the Simkin Centre (on the north side), which is currently a staff parking lot, to be called the Gray Family Centre. In addition to the day care portion, the wing will also house a multi-purpose area for community programming and worship, a grand gallery and a wellness centre.
In explaining why the Simkin Centre has now expanded its focus from some of the oldest members of our community to some of the youngest, Simkin Centre CEO Laurie Cerqueti said “being in this business for over 30 years now, I know things that make our residents happy are music, animals, and children. So, if we’re going to be able to bring the children here on a regular basis, it’s going to make life all that much better for our residents.”
Construction of the centre is slated to start this October and be completed in May 2028.
Local News
Epic court battle shaping up between Etz Chayim Congregation and two former members who are now barred from setting foot in Etz Chayim
By BERNIE BELLAN Introduction: This story had originally been posted Friday morning, August 14, with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue. Then we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:
“Hi Bernie.
“This request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul. We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons. Can I please ask that you change the image posted online (and planned for print if needed) and that in this be kept in mind for the future?
“Thank you so much for your understanding,
“Morissa”
We replied:
“Gee Morissa – I’ll do that but maybe you better ask Google to remove any mention of any Winnipeg synagogue because all anyone has to do is do a Google search and they’ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses – also photos! Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can’t be too careful, can we?
Now, here’s the story as it was originally posted:
The date October 7 carries a huge amount of significance for Jews around the world: It was the date that members of Hamas and other terrorist groups launched a murderous attack on innocent Israelis (and members of other nationalities) that resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 people and the abduction of 251 others.
But it is also a date that may have a significance of a different sort come this October 7 when a Winnipeg courtroom will be the scene of a court case in what is shaping up to be a momentous legal battle between Congregation Etz Chayim and two former members of the congregation who have been barred from attending services – or even setting foot inside the building that houses Congregation Etz Chayim.
Before publishing this article I had sent copies to both sides in the dispute – and offered both sides the opportunity to correct any mistakes they might have found in what I had written. I did receive responses from both sides and have incorporated their suggested corrections into what follows.
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim – and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.
While the case may seem hugely complicated, given the number of pages of documents that have already been filed, it seems that it boils down to two essential issues: Did CEC violate its own bylaws (or its own constitution, as the case may be, because at the time of the events in question a bylaw which would have governed who might be excluded from belonging to the congregation had not yet been passed) by terminating the memberships of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult? The argument advanced by the plaintiffs is not that a congregation cannot decide who can belong to that congregation. Rather, it is an argument that CEC did not properly adhere to its own bylaws in the manner in which it has excluded the plaintiffs from attending – or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.
But, a second issue in play – and one which is argued forcefully by CEC in one of its briefs is that the argument Emet Eviatar and David Hoult are advancing has no place in the courts in the first place. As is noted in one of the briefs filed on behalf of CEC: “The dispute is, at its core, about the internal governance of a religious congregation. It concerns who may participate in communal worship, who may participate in communal religious life, and how a synagogue governs itself in response to legitimate security concerns. If it is accepted that the dispute was about ideological differences, as alleged by the Applicants, then these are fundamentally religious questions. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and ought not to intervene.”
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated – but very interesting story.
I, myself was first made aware that something unusual was going on between CEC and David Hoult when I received this email from Dr. Hoult on Friday afternoon May 30, 2025, at 12:42 pm:
“Hi Bernie,
“I have just had a pair of police officers at the door telling me that we are now banned from Etz Chayim and if we show up the police will be called, no reasons given. I suspect it was an accumulation of things, including a letter I sent.
“Shabbat shalom,
“David.”
Later that afternoon I received another email, this time from a member of CEC, who forwarded me an email that had been sent to congregation members by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC. That email had a letter attached, which said, in part:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately.
“These individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities.”
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
“Hi,
“I received an email from David Hoult telling me that he is now banned from the Etz Chayim. I assume Emet Eviatar is also banned too, judging by the way your email is worded.
“I don’t know David at all – other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can’t begin to imagine what he might have written, but in the interest of fair reporting and fuller disclosure, can you say anything more about what he wrote in his letter?
“-Bernie Bellan
“Publisher,
“jewishpostandnews.ca
“also Associate Editor,
“The Jewish Post Winnipeg”
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that “troubling correspondence” which was received by CEC.
It was only when I went down to the Law Courts on August 10 that I was actually able to see what was in that “troubling correspondence.”
But, before I get into what was in that particular communication, even more background to this strange case is necessary.
In an email I received from CEC COO Morissa Granove following my having sent her a draft of this article, she wrote: “Congregation Etz Chayim …has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar’s views and yet there has never been an issue with their behaviour and as such, Congregation Etz Chayim has never taken action against anyone, revoked a membership, or refused entry to anyone based on their political stance.” Dr. Eviatar, in her own words, notes that she had already provoked the displeasure of some members of CEC, including staff members, by certain of her behaviours while, according to Morissa Granove, “volunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC …is ‘a Zionist organization’.”
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar’s family’s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question – until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar’s husband.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the following is taken from an affidavit given by Emet Eviatar, which might suggest that her membership in CEC had been called into question long before May 2025:
“In July 2024, I co-founded Manitoba Friends of Standing Together, a chapter of the international support network created by Standing Together. Standing Together is a grassroots joint Jewish and Palestinian organization in Israel which was originally created in 2015 to fight for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas they have pivoted to protesting the war in Gaza.
“On October 6, 2024, I appeared as a guest on the local CBC Radio Weekend Morning Show, together with Mr. Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba to discuss the importance of having local conversations between Jews and Palestinians…
“Later that week, I received a phone call from CEC Rabbi Kliel Rose and Cantor Tracy Kasner. They informed me that I would no longer be allowed to lead Sunday services. The rabbi also suggested that ‘for my own peace of mind’ I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.”)
“On November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald…
“While the letter contains various false statements, and is clearly a reference to my having contact with Mr. Zeid and others in the local Palestinian community, the assertion that I was aligned with an ‘ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel’ was extremely offensive and hurtful to my being an Israeli citizen, having family who live in Israel, and having served in the Israel Defence Forces.”
Later, on March 3, 2025, Emet Eviatar appeared a second time on the CBC morning weekend radio show, again with Mr. Zeid.
In an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, Ms. Granove explained the CEC’s objection to Emet Eviatar’s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC’s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar’s or her the family’s membership.)
“This public alignment with parties opposed to Israel raised concern within CEC about potential risks surrounding the Synagogue, especially in times of heightened safety risks and awareness of antisemitic vitriol. These concerns were brought to the attention of Dr. Eviatar. She took no action to mitigate these concerns. As a result, she was removed from a volunteer leadership position she held with CEC. CEC took no action regarding either of the Applicants’ ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.” In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: “Still, her family’s membership was never in question.”
But, in May 2025 something happened that led the CEC to take drastic action against Emet Eviatar, David Hoult and the other members of their household. It should be explained that, according to an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, who had stepped into the role of Chief Operations Officer of CEC in January 2025, in May 2025 CEC announced it would be adding new security measures, based on a “site security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
“Among other things, he advised:
“a) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
“b) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;”
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, “During discussion relating to security protocols…David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.”
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: “On May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
‘If, G-d forbid, I wanted to attack the shul on Shabbat morning it would be trivial. A stolen motorbike, onto the lawn, Kalashnikov to shatter the windows, gun down the congregation, drive away, ditch the bike, gun, mask and clothes…” (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, “In that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as ‘hysteria,’ ‘paranoia,’ and ‘psychologically stupid.’ “
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, “My wife and I received no direct communication from CEC advising of the termination of our membership until a cheque with no accompanying letter was received in the mail on June 9, 2025.”
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: “Congregation Etz Chayim was interviewed extensively by the WPS before going to the home of Dr. Hoult for the service call and had all of the details which were required in order to qualify their actions.”
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King’s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared “null and void,” also seeking an “order to comply with bye-laws” (of the CEC).
In response, CEC asserts that it “has never terminated the Applicants’ membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.” Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC “exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.’
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn’t “terminated the Applicants’ membership,” yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC’s position that, based on the plaintiffs’ claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts – as is noted at the beginning of this article, then arguments over whether CEC abided by its own bylaws would be moot.
Yet, if the courts might be willing to consider the issue whether CEC did not properly follow its own rules – as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC “terminated” the memberships of Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult might take on added importance.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the letter sent out by Morissa Granove to members of CEC on May 30, 2025 states quite clearly that “We have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.”
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC’s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there “provisions for the termination of membership.” Therefore, their argument goes, “CEC had no authority to terminate their membership.”
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: “The defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC’s governing constitution says that “directors ‘may pass by-laws’ regulating, among other things, ‘the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.’ The word ‘may’ is permissive.”
“Thus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.”
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership “had not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that “the very same bylaw was passed at a Special General Meeting of the members when Congregation Etz Chayim and its lawyers provided clarity on the proposed changes, which was requested by the members at the conclusion of the AGM to clear up any issue or confusion.”
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that “These individuals (i.e., Dr. Hoult and any members of his family) are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities” was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.
Whether or not CEC followed proper procedure in whatever happened to Dr. Hoult, Dr. Eviatar, and their other family members will be up to the courts to decide.
But, there is a larger issue at hand. Are there are any rules that might govern how a private organization such as a synagogue should govern itself? And, perhaps even more important, can the courts intervene at all in such a situation?
This case is shaping up to have some fascinating implications.
Local News
Ami Hassan returning as owner of Falafel Place
By BERNIE BELLAN In a surprise move – and after more than a six-year absence as owner of Falafel Place (Corydon at Wilton) the legendary Ami Hassan has decided to return as owner of one of Winnipeg’s most famous eateries.
Long known for his sometimes irreverent attitude to his customers, e.g., “If you’re finished, get out!”, Ami decided to return to running Falafel Place after having retired years ago (or so he thought) from running the Corydon Avenue restaurant.
We asked Ami whether he’ll be sending a special invitation to Julia Roberts to come visit him at Falafel Place. He asked again: “Who’s Julia Roberts?” (Just kidding – he really does know how Julia Roberts is.) Read the story how Ami told her to leave the restaurant and come back later at Julia Roberts turned away from Falafel Place
Ami did note that when customers saw him inside the restaurant one recent day as he was getting it ready for the reopening Monday, August 10, over 20 of them came in asking him if he was open already.
We asked Ami whether the menu will be the same as it was when he last ran the place and he said everything will be the same.
Falafel Place will be open 7 days a week from 7 am – 2 pm. Remember, if you’re finished – get out!
