Local News
Simkin Cenre hosts animated focus group on personal care homes hosted by MARCHE
By BERNIE BELLAN There are approximately 130 personal care homes in Manitoba with approximately 10,000 residents in those homes.
Of the 130 pch’s, 27 are in the not-for-profit category, most of which are faith-based.
One of those pch’s is the Simkin Centre.
The association of not-for-profit homes in Manitoba is known as “MARCHE” (Manitoba Association of Residential & Community Care Homes for the Elderly).
Recently MARCHE held a focus group at the Simkin Centre attended by staff, residents, relatives of residents, and others who were interested in hearing about the current situation insofar as most pch’s are concerned.
The discussion was facilitated by Julie Turenne-Maynard, executive director of MARCHE. Ms. Turenne-Maynard distributed points for discussion among the six tables at which participants sat. One person at each table was asked to take notes of the discussions that ensued. After approximately one hour of discussions at each table, the note takers were asked to give summaries of what had been said at each table.
According to Ms. Turenne-Maynard, the Simkin Centre focus group was the third and final one in a series of focus groups that MARCHE has conducted in Winnipeg.
Prior to our entering into the discussion groups Ms. Turenne-Maynard gave some introductory remarks pointing out the difficult situation faced by all pch’s in Manitoba, not just the not-for-profit ones.
She noted that there has been no increase in operational funding for pch’s for the past 15 years, even as inflation has made it increasingly difficult to deal with ever rising expenses.
“The majority of personal care homes in Manitoba were built in the 1950s and 60s,” Ms. Turenne-Maynard observed, yet “governments haven’t increased budgets for renovations to personal care homes in the past 25 years.”
The average age of residents in pch’s has risen dramatically. “In the 1960s and 70s many residents in personal care homes had parking spots,” Ms. Turenne-Maynard observed. Now a great many residents in pch’s are “level 3s and 4s,” she said – the highest level of care that can be provided.
“Baby boomers are coming up and we don’t have the room,” she added.
But, rather than turning the focus group into a litany of complaints, Ms. Turenne-Maynard said that the purpose was to be able to provide the provincial government with useful information that could be incorporated into policy decisions.
At that point the discussions at each table began.
Not having anyone myself who is a resident at a pch, I was interested to hear from others what their impressions of pch’s were and because everyone at my table was either a staff member at the Simkin Centre or a resident or spouse of a resident there, I was eager to hear their experiences. What was of particular interest to me was that even though there were two individuals at my table who work at the Simkin Centre sitting at my table, they were quite candid in discussing some of the frustrations they themselves have in working within the system.
The first point expressed by someone at our table was their frustration over the “panelling” process – the process whereby someone is admitted into a pch. It came as a surprise to me to learn that, under the current panelling system, if someone would like to be admitted as a resident into a pch, once a bed is available you do not have a choice where you can go. (No one at the table was quite sure when the system changed, but previously someone would be given a choice of three different pch’s.)
Not only is there now no choice as to which pch you can enter, if you are hospitalized and deemed fit for discharge into a pch, and you do not want to go the first pch that is available, you will be charged $200/day to remain in the hospital.
The situation, I was told though, is somewhat different for an individual still living at home. Efforts will be made to provide home care rather than have someone admitted into a pch, but the limitations of home care have been well publicized, with clients allowed to receive only a maximum of 2 1/2 hours of home care per day.
The discussion turned to personal experiences of home care residents. What did they think was lacking in their care, if anything?
The individual at our table who is a resident at Simkin Centre said they had “no complaints.”
A staff member at the table asked that resident if they thought there was enough “programming” at the Simkin Centre?
The resident answered that there was.
I asked the resident whether the food was good? The resident responded that they were quite happy with the food.
(I mentioned that I have heard from some residents at the Simkin Centre that they weren’t happy with the food. I also referred to a forum that had been held at the Asper Campus years ago during which many complaints were voiced about the food at the Simkin Centre. To be fair, it’s hard to make an overall assessment of food quality based on anecdotal reports, but I will continue to ask why the Simkin Centre has to serve kosher food to all residents when the majority of residents there are no longer Jewish? I realize this is a sacred cow among some members of our community, but the fact is that an increasing number of Jewish personal care homes in the US have gotten away from serving only kosher food.)
Another person at our table who actually has a close relative living at the Simkin Centre mentioned that person’s most commonly repeated complaint is that “people aren’t as johnny on the spot as she’d like” when it comes to responding to requests for assistance.
As well, apparently there is a problem at the Simkin Centre with “clothing sent to the laundry going missing.”
We were then asked to respond to this question: “What services would be most important to you?”
The spouse of the resident at our table said, “Not being stuck in the rooms.”
Someone else suggested that medical consultants coming to residents’ rooms rather than requiring residents to be taken to see a doctor would be very helpful. That same individual listed a variety of specialists who are urgently needed at the Simkin Centre, including gynecologists, dermatologists, dental hygienists, and psychiatrists,” as well as “estheticians.”
The need for better x-ray services was also mentioned.
Someone else noted that the Garden Café is only open from 11-1.
The next question which respondents were asked to consider was: “What style of personal care home would you like to live in?”
Someone brought up the idea of “small house” personal care homes, in which groups of 20 individuals live in a separate residence, where each resident has their own kitchen and their own shower.
But, as much as that style of living might seem to be especially appealing when one incorporates their own life experiences into thinking about where they’d want to live, one of the individuals at our table suggested that “many people often blossom when they come here” precisely because they’re living with a large number of other residents.
Still, the consensus among everyone at the table (with the exception of this writer, since I offered no opinion on the subject) was that, if they could ask for certain things in particular – which are not all available under current rules, they would be: 1) a private room (which is the case at the Simkin Centre); 2) their own fridge (not available); 3) their own shower (not available); and 4) their own coffeemaker. (I admit I was surprised to learn that coffeemakers are not allowed until it was explained that it was a safety issue).
The final question which respondents were asked to consider was: “What would you ask from the new NDP government?”
Answers included: “An increase in the hours per day allowed to each resident”; “more programming”’; “ask them to cover the increases in fixed costs”; “hours/worker have stayed the same while the needs of residents have increased.”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard asked the notetakers from each table to give summaries of what had been discussed. Some of the points that were expressed were:
- there is a need for more staff
- staff need to interact more with residents
- while it’s nice that the previous government has budgeted millions of dollars to build more pch’s, “don’t build in a vacuum”
- “regulate the off-label use of pharmaceuticals”
- units in pch’s should be smaller; instead of having 40 living in a unit, ideally it should be 12-15
- “people need a purpose”
- “a personal care home is a place to come and live, not a place to die”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard offered the following assessment of what to expect from the new government: “Because of the NDP sweep there’s going to be a lot of reconnecting” – with new ministers and some new deputy ministers, but many deputy ministers and policy analysts will be staying on,” which should give some continuity when it comes to planning.
At the same though, someone else observed that, as a result of so many failings in the private-for-profit personal care home sector, and the possibility that even more private pch’s may close, there might be even more pressure placed on the not-for-profit pch’s to fill the vacuum left by private pch’s closing.
It was also suggested that the government “avoid building pch’s using an outmoded funding model” that has long proved inadequate.
As one of the senior staff members at the Simkin Centre who was in attendance observed of government decision making: “Every pch operator submits their own 10-year plan – full of proposals – and you’re lucky if you get one thing done.”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard did say that MARCHE will take all the proposals that emerged from the three focus groups it has held and come up with a coherent set of ideas which it will take to the new government.
Local News
Israel’s ambassador to Canada makes first visit to Winnipeg
By MYRON LOVE On Thursday, August 6, Iddo Moed, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, made his first visit to Winnipeg and shared an overview of Israel-Canada relations with an engaged audience of about 100 Jewish community members and supporters. This was an important visit for the Winnipeg community. The event was focused on community affairs, with no presence of government or elected officials.
Moed is a 34-year veteran of the Israeli diplomat corps with a resumé that includes postings in China, Singapore, the Netherlands, and the Dominican Republic as well as some African countries. He has been stationed in Ottawa for the past three years.
The evening before the presentation, according to Jeff Lieberman, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg’s CEO, the ambassador walked through the Asper Campus introducing himself to people he encountered, then took in the show at the Israel Pavilion. Afterward, Moed spoke with several people at the show. On his way out, he looked into the Bedouin tent in front of the cultural display and visited for a few minutes with a family inside.
The evening began with remarks from Gustavo Zentner, Vice President, Prairies, at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), who highlighted the unbreakable bond between our Jewish community and Israel, as well as the deep and enduring connection between the Jewish people and Israel. “At a time of heightened antisemitism and anti-Zionism across Canada,” Zentner said, “the contributions of Jewish Canadians to Manitoba and to Canada are foundational to our shared society.”
He called on the community to celebrate what makes us strong, our innovation, our Jewish “chutzpah”, our resilience, and our commitment to being there for one another. Zentner noted that our determination to strengthen and protect our community must extend beyond our own institutions and include strong, visible advocacy.
“This means,” he observed, “creating more opportunities for open dialogue and meaningful engagement, while firmly denouncing and pushing back against antisemitism, Jew-hatred and anti-Zionism, not only to protect the Jewish community, but also as a means of safeguarding our Canadian way of life and standing up for other minority communities whose voices may not otherwise be heard.”
During his own remarks, Ambassador Moed spoke about the friendliness of Canadians but, nonetheless, he observed, his time here has been difficult.
“I remember a discussion that I had years ago with a friend who predicted that even though incidents of antisemitism back then were minimal, there would undoubtedly be a resurgence.” he observed. “The level of hate I have seen in Canada and around the world has been quite disturbing.”
Moed claimed that 97% of Jewish university students in North America report that they have experienced antisemitism. He added that for Holocaust survivors, the current levels of hate are bringing back traumatic memories.
“Since October 7, life has been much more challenging and difficult for our people,” he noted. “Social media in particular has been a major problem. We need to reach out to our allies in the non-Jewish world. We need to find ways to highlight all the good that Israel does in the world. We also need to emphasize that Jewish values are largely in sync with Canadian values.
“And our Jewish community institutions need to be working together in a pro-active manner,” Moed said.
When it comes to Canada-Israel trade, Moed described the current situation as “stagnant.” “There is a lot of interest in Canada in potential trade deals with Israel,” he reported, “but federal government policies are not helpful.” Moed did add that he sees much potential for trade at the provincial level. “There has been a lot of interest in Quebec and Ontario in particular,” he said. “We are trying to reach out to the other provinces as well.”
The ambassador spoke for a relatively short time so as to leave a lot of time for questions from the audience. One question was about the possibility of a two-state solution. In response, Moed pointed out that over the years, Israel has offered numerous concessions – to no avail.
“We have learned that we can’t trust the Palestinian leadership,” he said.
A question about war crimes gave Moed an opportunity to contrast the Israel Defense Force’s great efforts to reduce casualties among Palestinian civilians with frequent warnings before the air force drop bombs or infantry units move into populated areas with Hamas and Islamic Jihad literally hiding among and behind women and children and hiding in and storing weapons in schools, hospitals, mosques and private homes.
Moed added that every IDF regiment has a legal advisor embedded with it to ascertain that military actions abide by international law.
He noted that on October 6, 2023, Gaza was quiet. On October 8, social media and the legacy media were already condemning Israel for “genocide”.
Moed emphasized the importance of Jewish education in our communities in Canada and the United States – even suggesting that some of the money our communities send to Israel might be better spent investing in Jewish education here at home.
(Despite almost three years of war, Israel still has one of the world’s strongest economies.)
One questioner asked about the prospect of Israel’s high-tech industry- which is second in size only to California – being able to develop a system that can override all the negativity and present a more positive picture online of Israel and the Jewish People.
Moed agreed that “the left are eating our lunch.” “Maybe we can create a platform using AI that can present a more positive view of Israel,” he suggested.
Moed has one more year to serve in Ottawa before he returns to Israel and finds out where he is off to next.
Local News
This Toronto street corner has been a site of anti-Zionist activism for months. Police just opened a hate crime investigation.
By Sage Lattman August 25, 2026
This story was originally published in the Forward. Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
The Toronto Police Service hate crimes unit is investigating teacher Abbas Hamze for remarks about “Zionists.” Canadian Jewish groups, including the Jewish Federations of Canada’s advocacy arm and B’nai Brith Canada, have called his speech, which went viral online, “blatant antisemitism.”
Hamze’s remarks invoked antisemitic tropes, accusing “Zionists” of performing “black magic” as well as raping and killing children. He spoke at the intersection of Bathurst and Sheppard, in the heavily Jewish Toronto neighborhood of Bathurst Manor – Clanton Park.
According to his LinkedIn, Hamze works as an instructor at several Canadian colleges in the area, including the University of Niagara Falls and Georgian College. He does not specify what he teaches.
According to a statement by Georgian College, Hamze is no longer employed there, having taught an online data analytics course until last academic year. In an email to the Forward, a college spokesperson described Hamze’s remarks as “violent, derogatory and hateful” and said the college “doesn’t tolerate racism, hate, discrimination or harassment, including antisemitism, directed at any individual or group.”
Hamze could not be reached for comment. The University of Niagara Falls did not respond to requests to comment, and the Toronto Police declined a request for comment.
UNF issued a statement addressing Hamze’s remarks, distancing the university from the instructor’s statements and stating that they have “zero tolerance for discrimination, hate, harassment, or any conduct that threatens the dignity and well-being of others.” They announced that they are “launching an internal investigation” into the matter.
In his speech, Hamze claimed that “British colonizers have planted this cancerous, false Zionist state of Israel … right in the heart of Islam.”
Later — wearing a keffiyeh and reading from his phone into a megaphone emblazoned with the Lebanese flag — the instructor repeated numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories, including the debunked idea that Jews have caused or deserved centuries of persecution.
“The Zionists have never had a country of their own because of their mischief,” Hamze said. “They are the most kicked-out people in the world who are making black magic and horrible things.”
He went on to say that Jewish corruption is “crystal clear in Epstein Island where they have the Jewish leaders from all around the world.” He accused “Zionists” of having “raped, and killed, and ate children at the same time.”
Finally, he unfoundedly blamed the actions of President Donald Trump on “Zionists” who “blackmail” and “control” people.
“That’s why you can see now a guy like Trump who caused this genocide in Gaza kidnaps the presidents of Venezuala, kills the supreme leader of Iran Imam Ali Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul,” he said. “This is because of them, the terrorist Zionists.”
It appears that people became aware of Hamze’s remarks after Casey Babb, an Israel and International Relations scholar, posted a video of him on X.
In a joint statement, Canadian Jewish groups described Hamze’s claims as “antisemitic blood libels that have been used for centuries to justify hatred and violence against Jews.”
The statement says that the intersection where Hamze spoke, Bathurst and Sheppard, has long been a site of “antisemitic harassment, intimidation and provocation, too often under the guise of anti-Zionism,” and called on Toronto’s police department to investigate the incident.
“Allowing this behaviour to go unchecked is to normalize antisemitism as an everyday feature of life in this city,” it stated.
The city’s police have opened an investigation. However, online, some said that Hamze had been speaking at the street corner for months without police intervention.
In Canada, public incitement of hatred is considered a criminal offense. The Canadian criminal code says that “communicating statements in any public place” that “incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” is a breach of law, resulting in up to two years in prison.
This story was originally published on the Forward.
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.
