Local News
Situation re possible sale of Town Island gets even murkier
By BERNIE BELLAN
The situation regarding the possible sale of Town Island took a somewhat confusing twist these past two weeks when an online publication known as Kenora Online reported on Monday, January 13, that Kenora-Rainy River MPP Greg Rickford (who is also Ontario’s Northern Development Minister) said “he’s working with the City of Kenora on a possible Town Island land swap.”
However, a careful reading of what Rickford is actually quoted as having said might be interpreted as the exact opposite of what the Kenora Online wrote when it said Rickford is working on a “land swap” with Kenora. Here is what the article actually said:
“Kenora Rainy-River MPP and Northern Development Minister Greg Rickford says he’s working alongside staff with the City of Kenora to create an opportunity for more housing and land developments, and the plans include Kenora’s Town Island.”
“ ‘There’s discussions with the city and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on the opportunity. Now that we more clearly understand the city’s intentions are with it, I’ve assured the Mayor and Councillors (sic.) that we’re going to move forward and try to create an opportunity for them,’ said the minister.”
When I emailed Adam Smith, the City of Kenora’s Manager of Land Services, to ask him whether he could confirm that there have been negotiations with the Province of Ontario over Town Island, Smith categorically denied that there have been any negotiations with the Province of Ontario over anything to do with a land swap for Town Island.
Here’s what Smith wrote to me on January 17:
“Hi Bernie,
“The City has not had any discussions around a land swap with the Province (emphasis ours). I understand there is an article suggesting otherwise and I would suggest following up with the editor on the content.”
As a result of the possible misinterpretation of what Minister Rickford said to the reporter for Kenora Online, we have attempted to contact Minister Rickford himself to seek a clarification of what it is exactly that the Province of Ontario would like to do re Town Island.
In an email I sent to Minister Richford on January 17, I asked the minister the following:
“A careful reading of what you had to say could lead one to think that the province is interested in helping to ‘develop’ Town Island – which is the opposite of what those hoping for a land swap would want (which would be to see Town Island conserved in its natural state).
“Can you help me to understand just what it is that the province is interested in doing? Also, have there been negotiations with Kenora, but they don’t have anything to do with a land swap?”
In a previous article we noted that the City of Kenora had set January 31, 2020 as the deadline for receiving expressions of interest re Town Island. The clock is ticking. As we noted in our Short takes column of January 8, the Province of Ontario holds the key cards in this situation if it were to propose a land swap with Kenora for Town Island.
But, it is entirely possible that Kenora will want to move ahead with the sale of that part of Town Island which it still owns regardless of the position that the Province of Ontario might take. Thus, it is crucial to understand what Minister Rickford meant when he said that “There’s discussions with the city and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on the opportunity”.
What opportunity is he referring to? Is it the opportunity to “develop” Town Island, which is what he seems to be saying – and which would be devastating news for the Friends of Town Island and other groups that have rallied in support of halting the sale of Town Island or is it the opportunity to conserve Town Island as a “nature conservancy”, which is what the Friends of Town Island are proposing?
Certainly, ambiguity is what most politicians are very good at delivering when they offer any comments at all – if you can even get a politician to make a public comment. But, in the case of Minister Rickford, it doesn’t seem that he was being deliberately ambiguous. He certainly had something in mind when he said “he’s working alongside staff with the City of Kenora to create an opportunity for more housing and land developments, and the plans include Kenora’s Town Island.”
The problem here is that the reporter for Kenora Online didn’t follow up that remark with this sort of question: “Are you talking about developing Town Island?”
Instead, the reporter – and it would seem whoever was responsible for posting the story online, took Rickford to mean that he was interested in the idea of swapping Town Island, which explains why the headline for the story read: “Province, City working on Town Island land swap”.
Naturally, when I read that headline, my first reaction was: “Whew! Finally, the Province of Ontario is stepping in to help save Town Island from development”, which is something I suggested in our January 8 issue was the desired outcome for this vexing situation.
Thus, when I sent an email to Adam Smith of the City of Kenora, asking him whether he could confirm that there had been discussions with the Ontario provincial government about a land swap for Town Island, I was shocked to read that, not only was there nothing to announce regarding a deal to swap provincially owned land either in or adjacent to Kenora for Town Island – Smith denied there had even been any negotiations on the matter.
But, it took three days for Smith to respond to my query about a land swap. Once I received his response late Friday afternoon, I immediately contacted the reporter for Kenora Online to ask him whether he had recorded anything else Minister Rickford might have said that would have justified going forward with a headline that Ontario and Kenora were working on a land swap for Town Island?
Here’s what the reporter wrote back to me in an email: “That is the direct quote I received from Minister Rickford after speaking with him in person in regards to the Town Island land swap (emphasis ours). I’d encourage you to contact his office for more.”
So, it would seem clear that the reporter for Kenora Online was asking about a land swap when he spoke with Minister Rickford. And, I can well understand the reporter’s interpreting the minister’s response to mean that the Province of Ontario was indeed interested in a land swap, but this wouldn’t be the first time that a reporter might have rushed to judgement without asking a more specific question that would have removed any doubt as to what the minister meant.
Why all this concern about Town Island, you might be wondering? Well, if over 10,000 individuals have taken the time to sign a petition asking the City of Kenora not to sell Town Island, it’s pretty clear that this is an issue that resonates with a great many people.
And, with the clock ticking as we move ever closer to the possibility that Kenora may indeed sell off the rest of Town Island to a private developer (although there is nothing to forestall an organization or individual from coming forward with an offer that would see Town Island safeguarded from private development), it’s awfully important to remove any ambiguity as to what the Province of Ontario is prepared to do to protect Town Island – if anything at all.
I’m just afraid that the Kenora Online might have got it all wrong though – and, rather than wanting to preserve Town Island, the Minister of Northern Development for Ontario actually wants to develop Town Island. After all, his title contains the word “development”, not preservation.
And, given the response that I received from Adam Smith of Kenora in which he said there have not been any negotiations at all with the Province of Ontario over a land swap for Town Island, it doesn’t appear that the Province of Ontario will do anything to stop the sale of Town Island to private developers. Just the opposite seems the most logical interpretation of what Minister Rickford had to say: He wants to “develop” Town Island.
Post script: We have to attempted to reach Minister Rickford several times since this article first appeared in our print edition, including through his government office in Toronto and his constituency office in Rainy River – to clarify just what is the Government of Ontario’s intent with respect to Town Island, but have not heard back from anyone associated with the Ontario government.
This is one case though, where I hope I’m proved absolutely wrong though – and the Ontario government is sincerely interested in doing a deal with Kenora.
Local News
Former Winnipegger files lawsuit against Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation, former Herzlia Rabbi Ephraim Bryks, and two other defendants over allegations of sexual abuse and assault by Rabbi Bryks in 1987
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted December 29, 2025) A former Winnipegger by the name of Ruth Krevsky (née Pinsky) has filed a lawsuit in Court of King’s Bench in Winnipeg on December 9, 2025 naming “Ephraim Boruk Bryks, Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregtion Inc., Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and Rabbinical Council of America” as defendants.
The lawsuit seeks damages in the total amount of $4,200,000.
In the 30-page statement of claim Krevsky alleges that “In or around 1984, when the Plaintiff was approximately 19 years of age, Bryks sexually abused and assaulted the Plaintiff. The particulars of same include, but not (sic.) are not limited to the following:
” (a) initiated and engaged in physical contact of a sexual nature with the Plaintiff in his bedroom;
” (b) strapped the buttocks of the Plaintiff;
” (c) engaged in other sexual activities with the Plaintiff; and
” (d) in order to facilitate the abuse Bryks engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that she was special in the eyes of Bryks and Judaism.
“The abuse occurred in Bryks’ house located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.”
The lawsuit goes on to allege that “After the aforementioned abuse occurred, Bryks exploited his position of seniority and the trust he had cultivated with the Plaintiff to manipulate and control He used this dependency to discourage the Plaintiff from disclosing his actions, including by threatening her and by withholding reference letters essential for her academic and professional advancement.”
The lawsuit further alleges that “In or around 1987, while employed by the Congregation, Bryks was accused by (sic.) of several sexual offences involving young girls and women, including students at the School. (Ed. note, the reference is to Torah Academy, which Bryks started.) Although no criminal charges were filed at the time, the allegations were brought to the attention of the Congregation, the Union (of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America) and/or the Council (Rabbinical Council of America). Since then. additional individuals have come forward with similar allegations of sexual abuse by Bryks.”
The lawsuit also names the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregtion Inc., as defendant, citing ten different rules that “the Congregation taught the Plaintiff as well as other members of the Synagogue, including
“that it was forbidden to report a Jewish religious figure such as a rabbi to secular authorities and that any such reporting would constitute a serious violation of religious duty and loyalty to Judaism.”
Further, “The Plaintiff pleads that the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies of the Congregation created an opportunity for Bryks to exert power and authority over the Plaintiff. The power and authority allowed Bryks to engage in the aforementioned behaviour and to continue to engage in same without resistance or question of the Plaintiff, without risk of getting caught, and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by Bryks…
“As a result, the Congregation is vicariously responsible and liable for the actions of Bryks.”
The lawsuit goes on to list a series of behaviours in which it alleges Bryks was engaging and alleges the Congregation ignored many aspects of Bryks’ behaviour, including, among others: “Bryks’ difficulties with alcohol” and “Bryks’ difficulties with his sexuality.”
The lawsuit lists a long series of damages the Plaintiff alleges she has suffered as a result of Bryks’ behaviour and the refusal of the other defendants, including the Herzlia Congregation, to take any action against Bryks.
We have reached out to Ruth Krevsky, her counsel, counsel for the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation, and the president of the congregation for comment. To date, we have not heard from either Ms. Krevsky or her counsel. We did hear from the president of the congregation, who asked us to refer any questions to counsel for the congregation. We did speak with counsel for the congregation, but at this point he indicated that he had just been recently hired to represent the congregation and was just beginning to acquaint himself with the file.
The Rabbi Bryks story was one that tore the Winnipeg Jewish community asunder. The Jewish Post had a number of stories about the allegations that were levelled against Rabbi Bryks. (You can find those stories by going to our “Search Archive” link and entering the name “Rabbi Bryks.”)
We will have much more about Rabbi Bryks in the days to come. Keep referring to this website as we add to the story.
Local News
Newly announced Vivian Silver Centre for Shared Society to further former Winnipegger’s lifelong efforts to foster Jewish-Arab co-operation in Israel
By MYRON LOVE Vivian Silver (oleh Hashalom) devoted her life to working toward dialogue and collaboration between Arabs and Jews in Israel. The culmination of her efforts was the Arab-Jewish Center for Empowerment, Equality, and Cooperation – Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Economic Development (AJEEC-NISPED), which she co-founded 25 year ago with her sister peace activist, Dr. Amal Elsana Ahl’jooj.
Tragically, Vivian was of the 1,200 Israeli Jews, Bedouin and foreign farm workers who were slaughtered during the Hamas-led pogrom of October 7, 2023.
Last month, AJEEC-NISPED announced plans to create the Vivian Silver Center for Shared Society in her memory – a new national hub for Jewish-Israeli Arab collaboration and social innovation in Be’er Sheva – backed by an initial $1 million donation from UJA-Federation of New York, along with support from the Meyerhoff Foundation, the Gilbert Foundation, and other philanthropic partners committed to strengthening shared society in Israel.
“It’s a great honor and a beautiful gesture,” comments Vivian’s son, Yonatan Zeigen, “and I hope it will be a central building for civil society, both in the physical sense, that it will become a substantial home for the organization and for other initiatives that will use the spaced and also symbolically, as a beacon for this kind of work in the specific location in the Negev.”
As this writer noted n an article earlier this year in relation to the announcement of the launch of the Vivian Silver Impact Award by the New Israel Fund (NIF) – of which she was a long time board member, and which was developed in conjunction with her sons, Yonatan and Chen), Vivian made aliyah in 1974. She first went to Israel in 1968 – to spend her second year at university abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, studying psychology and English literature.
In an article she wrote in 2018 in a publication called ”Women Wage Peace,” she related that during her final year at the University of Manitoba, she was among the founders of the Student Zionist Alliance on campus and was invited to its national conference in Montreal. There she met activists in the Habonim youth movement who planned on making aliyah and re-establishing Kibbutz Gezer. The day she wrote her last university exam, she boarded a flight to New York to join the group.
She spent three years in New York, where she became involved in Jewish and Zionist causes, including the launch of the Jewish feminist movement in America.
“It was a life-changing period,” she recalled. “I came to understood that in addition to being a kibbutz member, I was destined to be a social change and peace activist.”
Vivian and her group made aliyah in 1974 and settled on Kibbutz Gezer. In 1981, she established the Department Promoting Gender Equality in the Kibbutz Movement. She moved to Kibbutz Be’eri near the Gaza border in 1990, along with her late husband, Lewis, and their two sons
In 1998, Vivian became the executive director of the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development in Beer Sheva, an NGO promoting human sustainable development, shared society between Jews and Arabs, and peace in the Middle East. Soon after, she was joined by Amal Elsana Alh’jooj as co-directors of AJEEC-NISPED, winning the 2011 Victor J. Goldberg Peace Prize of the Institute for International Education.
In the article she wrote for “Women Waging Peace,” she noted that “while we later focused on empowerment projects in the Bedouin community in the Negev, initially we worked with Palestinian organizations on joint people-to-people projects. I spent much time in Gaza until the outbreak of the second intifada. We continued working with organizations in the West Bank. I personally know so many Palestinians who yearn for peace no less than we do.”
According to a report in the Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva, in the November 24th edition, the Vivian Silver Centre – which is expected to open in the spring – will be located within AJEEC-NISPED’s soon-to-open AJEEC House, and will provide a permanent home for programs that promote equality, leadership, and cooperation among Israel’s diverse communities.
“The Vivian Silver Center for Shared Society, within AJEEC’s headquarters, “the Arutz Sheva report noted, “will serve as a regional platform for dozens of Israeli Arab and Jewish social organizations. Through AJEEC’s educational, vocational, and leadership programs, the center will support thousands of young adults each year – offering mentorship, professional training, and opportunities for cross-cultural collaboration.
“These programs,” the report continued, “already reach more than 15,000 participants nationwide, helping young people integrate into higher education and meaningful employment while narrowing social and economic gaps.”
AJEEC House is located in Be’er Sheva’s Science Park, near Ben-Gurion University. The three-storey AJEEC House has been designed to foster cooperation and dialogue. It will host community partnerships, provide shared workspaces for social entrepreneurs, and serve as a hub for initiatives addressing social and economic development across the Negev and beyond.
Readers who may be interested considering a donation can dial into NISPED’s website – – for further information.
Local News
Stanley Schwartz- it’s a long way from Waterloo
By GERRY POSNER For Stanley Schwartz, it all began on Waterloo Street. For those who remember the 1950s and 60s – take yourself back to the south end of Winnipeg. Waterloo between Corydon and Fleet had enough Jewish families to form its own High Holiday congregation. That is to say, there were a whole bunch of Jewish families there. Not quite McAdam Avenue in the north end – but close enough. One such family was that of Harold and Faye Schwartz, along with their children: Anita, Ruth, and Stanley.
Stanley graduated from Kelvin High School. In fact, he played football for the Kelvin Clipper. In addition, he was a participant in typical Jewish teen activities at the time, particularly AZA. He had a wide network of friends, some of whom remain vital connections to this day. Remember, in those days, there were no cell phones, no internet, and barely the beginnings of TV. So, as a teenage boy, Stanley spent a lot of time with his buddies.
Stanley went on to the University of Manitoba from where he graduated law in 1967. That was Stanley’s first step into a career that lasted close to 50 years. His second big step was his decision to forgo an offer to become a partner in a well known and established law firm in Winnipeg, and instead, go out on his own in a shared space arrangement. The shared space arrangement lasted several years and, during that time, he also opened up an office in Morris, Manitoba. Morris was once home to several Jewish families, but not when Stanley moved there to live.
Along his way to practicing law, Stanley got married – to the former Shirley Hooper, a woman originally from England who had moved to Vancouver and whom Stanley met by chance in Hawaii. They were blessed with two children and now have five grandkids. But the family did not end up in Winnipeg. In what was a huge life changing decision at that time, Stanley and Shirley boldly packed up their belongings and moved to Vancouver. Now, some of the thinking that entered into this move might well have been Shirley’s lack of fondness for the Manitoba winters (even though she had formed close relationships with many people in Winnipeg at that time – relationships she still maintainsto this day). But Stanley was also open to a fresh start in a new place. That decision, looking back on it now in 2025, was a wise one for both Stanley and Shirley Schwartz. For starters, who knew that Vancouver would explode with an immigrant population and with it, a dramatic increase in the value of property, caused in part by non-residents buying up land and buildings in Vancouver? Aside from that, Stanley had a specialty in his practice of law that was a perfect fit for Vancouver’s growing population- family law.
For the entirety of his legal career, Stanley focused on matrimonial law in every aspect, not the least of which was litigation. As a former lawyer myself, let me say that if there is an area of law filled with tension, aggravation, and sadness, it surely must be the field of marriage, children and custody battles, access, division of assets and all that goes with those issues. You often are not just a lawyer, but also a psychologist, father confessor and a lot more. You really have to be able to be able to watch some of the worst in humanity. And you have to be ready to, as they say, “ go for the jugular.”
You may never have to do it, but you have to be ready. Stanley Schwartz was ( nd remains so this day, in my view) on the face of it, not a likely candidate to be thought of as aggressive.That is because he was then and still is now, a friendly guy who does not seem to be one cut out for courtroom battles. But clearly, he was able to be “ rough and tough” when he had to be. When I asked Stanley what advice he would give to somebody wanting to employ him in a family law situation, he was quite frank. His immediate response to these kinds of clients was: “If you want a war, the winners will be two people -the two lawyers. The losers will be your children ( f there are kids in the picture.”)
Stanley might still have been at it, but he had medical issues relating to his back over a period of many years. He has had three spinal surgeries, and none of them has really worked satisfactorily. Standing for periods of time was hard for Stanley. He says he knew it was time to give up his practice of law when one day in court six or seven years ago, while he was in argument, he leaned against the dais and the judge told him that it was ok for him to sit down and argue. That episode confirmed what he had thought for a while: time to call it a day and a career. So with two metal rods in his back and pain in his legs, Stanley retired.
Though no longer involved in the legal world, Stanley has managed, very easily he would add, to settle into his non working life with as much travel as he and Shirley are able to do. That travel includes trips back to Winnipeg, also Winnipeg Beach – where he spent much of his youth. His visits also include time with his sister, Anita Ruth Neville, a name not exactly unknown to Manitobans given her role as the 26th Lieutenant Governor for the Province of Manitoba. And, with one daughter in Toronto, Shirley and Stanley also make regular stops in that city to see his family there.
Not that long ago, Stanley stepped into the world of octogenarians. He is quick to say that getting old is not for sissies, but at the same time, he is one to embrace what each phase of his life has brought.
