Local News
The debate over whether Jewish seniors’ homes need to be fully kosher
In recent issues of The Jewish Post & News we’ve been debating whether the Simkin Centre needs to remain a fully kosher facility. Following are a number of different letters that were published in the Feb. 16 issue of the print edition, followed by an article that ran in Tablet magazine in 2019 which examined the increasing number of Jewish seniors’ homes in the US that have gone non-kosher:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 I sent the following email to Rabbi Yosef Benarroch, who is both the spiritual leader of Adas Yeshurun – Herzlia congregation, also the head of the Vaad Hakashrut of Winnipeg:
Hi Rabbi,
I assume you’re still in Israel as I write this. I hope you’re staying warmer there than we are here.
As usual, I’ve asked a question that might get some people wondering about a subject that doesn’t get raised often, this time it’s kashrut at the Simkin Centre.
I’ve been trying to find out just how many of the residents there aren’t Jewish, but so far Laurie Cerqueti (the CEO of Simkin Centre) hasn’t answered that question.
The reason I ask is that some of the Jewish residents are wondering what’s happening to the home, what with all the non-Jewish residents who have come in in recent years.
At the same time, I’ve been wondering whether it would be possible to have non kosher food in the centre.
The CEO of the Louis Brier Home in Vancouver wrote to me that, while that facility still serves only kosher food, residents are allowed to bring non kosher food in, so long as they eat it only in their rooms.
Would such a policy be acceptable at the Simkin Centre?
Stay safe – and good Shabbes.
-Bernie
(I should note that in my Short takes column of Feb. 2 I suggested that the Simkin Centre ought to consider going nonkosher, as have so many Jewish seniors’ homes in the US. Further, since I sent this email I have been advised that residents are indeed allowed to eat non-kosher food, so long as it is eaten only in their rooms.)
On Feb. 6 Rabbi Yosef Benarroch responded
Bernie
I was quite surprised to read your piece on the Simkin advocating for the facility to go non kosher and provide packaged meals for those who want kosher. In the seven years that I have been overseeing Kashrut at the Simkin there has not been a single such request. Not from the administration, not from residents and not from families including the non Jewish residents. The quality of the food is excellent and I can say this first hand with my mother being a resident. I find it puzzling and shocking that the “Jewish” newspaper of the city would be advocating to turn the Jewish seniors home in Winnipeg not kosher.
My best
Rabbi Yosef Benarroch
******
I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Saul and Claribel Simkin Centre regarding your column in the February 2nd edition of the Jewish Post and News. This relates to your questions about the Centre providing our residents with a Kosher diet, and the ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish residents.
Regarding our use of Kosher food, we are not attempting to “maintain a pretense of keeping Kosher,” as you stated in your column, but to adhere to the principles and values of the Centre going back to its days as the Sharon Home. This topic comes up at Board meetings from time to time, and the Board consistently supports the continuation of this tradition. We pride ourselves on the quality of the freshly made Kosher food we provide our residents, and plan to continue doing so.
Regarding the ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish residents, over the years approximately 60% to 65% of our residents have been Jewish. As Laurie Cerqueti noted when you contacted her, the numbers vary over time. While we welcome people of all faiths at the Centre, we try to maintain open rooms for Jewish people in the community who need the support we provide in a timely fashion. I was surprised when you stated that Laurie “is worried that the figures [regarding the number of Jewish residents] might come as shock to Jewish Winnipeggers.” Under Laurie’s leadership the Simkin Centre, during the current pandemic, has been one of the most open and transparent organizations in the city. The ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish residents is not a secret to be kept from the Community, but a fact based on the number of Jewish community members needing and wanting to reside with us.
Sincerely,
Gerry Kaplan, MSW
Chair,
Saul and Claribel Simkin Centre Board of Directors
******
In your most recent Short Takes column you commented on the apparent declining percentage of Jewish residents at The Simkin Centre Personal Care Home. You attributed the decline in the Jewish census at the Centre to the fact that the actual number of Jewish people in the community had declined and that there were alternatives to personal care home care, such as assisted living, which together meant that demand for personal care home beds had declined within the Jewish community.
While I think your reasoning on why there are fewer Jewish people in The Centre is correct, it is important to recognize the significant difference in the eligibility criteria for personal care home admission currently in Manitoba as opposed to 30 years ago when the Sharon Home on Magnus would have had a 100% Jewish population. In the old days places like the Sharon Home were more like retirement residences and people could move into them experiencing far less disability than is currently required for PCH admission. People who moved in were much younger and lived in the Home much longer. With a significantly larger Jewish population in Winnipeg in those days it was a given that very few non Jewish people would be admitted, if at all. Currently, people who are admitted into personal care homes are much more debilitated both physically and cognitively and the turnover in residents is much quicker. Combined with the decline in the Winnipeg Jewish population from its peak of 25,000 to what is now probably less then 15,000 it is a given that when a bed becomes available at the Centre it is more likely to be occupied by a non Jewish person – this in spite of the fact that Jewish people continue to be a priority for admission. Within 5 years the Jewish population at the Centre could fall to 25% or less.
Your comments about the continued provision of solely kosher food at the Centre are good ones. According to surveys in the United States only 15% to 20% of Jewish people are kosher. Fully 65% of non orthodox Jewish people in the US eat pork products and only 10% of American Jews identify themselves as orthodox. I suspect that the Canadian Jewish population is not much different. Being kosher is not a characteristic that defines Jewish identity for a great majority of Jewish people. In my time at The Centre it was clear that many Jewish people entering the facility had not been leading kosher lives before they entered. When you combine that reality with the fact that a majority of the Centre’s residents are not Jewish it might be time to rethink the current kosher policy. As you have pointed out this is already happening in Jewish care facilities and seniors’ residences in the United States.
Irwin Corobow
Ed. note: Irwin Corobow is a former CEO of the Simkin Centre.
The figures Irwin gives for the Jewish population of Winnipeg are not quite correct. The highest number ever reported in the census occurrred in 1961, when the Jewish popuation was just short of 20,000. The 2011 National Household Survey (which replaced the census that year) indicates that there were, at most, 12,500 Jews in Winnipeg that year. The 2016 census reported only 7,640 Jews in Winnipeg, but that figure has been largely discredited. We’re anxiously awaiting results of the 2021 census.
*****
Jewish senior residences shift away from kosher food
Whether it’s done to save money, or to respect residents’ personal choices, the menus are changing
The following article appeared in the online magazine, “Tablet”, on April 28, 2019.
By JUNE D. BELL
Before the Sinai Residences in Boca Raton, Florida, opened in 2016, several hundred Jewish seniors who’d put down deposits received a survey about meals. Specifically, how important was kosher food?
Not important at all, it turned out. If Sinai were exclusively kosher, the vast majority said, they’d rescind their deposits. “They said having a kosher option was great, but being completely kosher would deter them from moving in,” said Chris Newport, Sinai’s executive director.
The Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, which developed the not-for-profit senior community, scrapped plans for a kosher kitchen. Pork and shellfish aren’t on the menu, but residents can dine on cheeseburgers and chicken Parmesan. All 234 independent-living apartments are occupied, and more than 60 people are on the waiting list.
Sinai is far from the only senior residence touting nonkosher fare in a Jewish communal setting. From Philadelphia to Silicon Valley, communities for aging Jews have been succumbing to a host of pressures to expand their menus beyond the limits of kashrut.
Some of that pressure is financial. Facilities pay a premium for kosher supervision of two kitchens with at least two sets of dishes and cutlery, and hekhshered meats, cheeses, and other products cost more than their nonkosher counterparts. But residents themselves exert an outsize influence on the menus of the communities where they plan to spend their last years. Many find kosher fare at best uninspiring and at worst, irrelevant. Their perspective reflects the paradoxical, quixotic relationship that most American Jews have with kosher food: It may be a good thing, but it’s not necessarily my thing.
*
About 1 in 5 Jewish Americans—22%—keep kosher at home, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center . The more observant you are, the more likely you are to have a kosher home: 92% of Orthodox Jews said they have kosher kitchens, as did 31% of Conservative Jews and 7% of Reform Jews. The survey didn’t ask about food choices in restaurants or elsewhere.
Beverly Gareleck, who has kept a kosher home for more than five decades, lives in one of the 182 apartments at MorseLife’s Levin Palace in West Palm Beach, Florida. She regularly eats in the kosher dining room, which is supervised by the Orthodox Rabbinical Board of Broward and Palm Beach Counties. “I’m very happy to have the kosher restaurant. It means a lot to me,” said Gareleck, a Buffalo, New York, native. “It’s silly, but I feel it’s healthier, and it’s been looked at and taken care of in a better way.”
But if shrimp is on the menu in the nonkosher dining room, Gareleck will forgo kosher chicken pilaf, brisket, or prime rib. And when a group of friends plans a nonkosher meal, she’ll join them. About half of the 220 Palace residents opt for a kosher dinner each night, but only about 45 eat solely kosher food, said Keith A. Myers, president and CEO of MorseLife Health System.
The kosher versus nonkosher debate at Jewish senior residences was absent from this month’s conference agenda of the Association of Jewish Aging Services—not because it’s a topic members are afraid to discuss, but because they’ve already discussed it so much. “People are tired of talking about it,” said Stuart Almer, the conference’s co-chair and president and CEO of the Gurwin Jewish Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Long Island. “It’s a sensitive issue to remain kosher or not.” About 20 of Gurwin’s 460 residents eat nothing but kosher food. At Long Island’s Parker Jewish Institute, where Almer previously worked, 20 of about 525 residents consistently ate food prepared in the kosher kitchen.
*
Relocating to a senior independent living community can be a fraught decision. Seniors must leave a familiar neighborhood and acknowledge the potential need for services such as assisted living and skilled nursing that “continuum of care” facilities offer.
Communal meals in a new residence help ease that transition and combat the loneliness and isolation many seniors experience. “It is really important; I can’t emphasize it enough,” said Joan Denison, executive director of Covenant Place in St. Louis, where as many as 100 seniors—most of them Jewish— eat a subsidized kosher meal five nights a week.
Matzo ball soup and challah are a comforting sight on a Friday night table, invoking a shared culture and history. “The food is a very easy item to say what makes a facility Jewish,” Almer said. “Food is a big part of it. It’s an obvious and tangible thing.”
When seniors choose a community, the meals—their quality, variety, taste, and presentation—carry disproportionate weight. “If you’re in your 80s or 90s, what’s the only thing you can control?” said Newport, of Sinai Residences. “You maybe can’t drive any more, your family has passed away or your kids are grown up and your spouse may have died. You can control only one thing: your food.”
Administrators are paying close attention, particularly as 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 every day, a that will continue through the next decade. “The preferences of our senior-living residents are what’s really going to drive our business model,” Newport said. “As long as the residents are able to have the things they want in their lives, that’s what’s going to really trigger them to move into senior living.”
Enticing Jewish elders means accommodating their preferences, said Martin Goetz, CEO of River Garden Senior Services in Jacksonville, Florida. “If there is a trend, it’s away from kosher or ‘kosher is optimal.’ That’s for survival.” That shift is occurring across the country, either in one fell swoop or by degrees.
In Philadelphia, ownership changes and residents’ preferences led two predominately Jewish senior residences—Martins Run Senior Residential Community and the Golden Slipper Health and Rehab Center—to eliminate their kosher kitchens. Golden Slipper, now the Glendale Uptown Home, transitioned to kosher-style meals in 2013 for its 200 residents, most of whom were Jewish.
Martins Run in Media, Pennsylvania, added a nonkosher kitchen after requests from prospective and current residents. The community was eventually acquired by Wesley Enhanced Living, which has roots in the Evangelical Association of Churches. Wesley’s still touts its “kosher food of the highest standards under strict rabbinical supervision.” The four remaining residents who keep kosher eat their prepared dinners together at a single table. “Am I disappointed? Yes,” said Ethel Hamburger, 91, who chose Martins Run 12 years ago for its kosher food and Jewish population. “It’s not the place it was.” A Wesley spokeswoman declined comment.
*
New cafes opening this spring on Jewish community center campuses that include senior residences in St. Louis and West Palm Beach will be serving nonkosher food to Jewish seniors, their families, and the community.
The kosher kitchens on the 50-acre MorseLife campus in West Palm Beach feed residents of the assisted living center, adult day care programs, a kosher Meals on Wheels program, students at four Jewish schools, and seniors who eat in the kosher dining rooms in the Palace, where Gareleck lives. But the bistro that opens on campus in June—where Palace residents will be able to eat at no charge, since their meals are included—will serve food from the nonkosher kitchen in the independent-living building.
Covenant Place in St. Louis is part of the Millstone Campus, which includes the St. Louis JCC, the federation, and the va’ad. In June, a new building is set to open that will include
medical services, physical therapy, and geriatric care facilities, as well as a new café. Seniors who live in Covenant Place’s 355 apartments—which each have kitchens—can eat at the new bistro on campus if they wish; it’s also open to everyone else, including health-care staff who serve the seniors and families who use the JCC.
“We had a big debate: Should we be kosher or nonkosher,” said Denison. The compromise was a dairy kitchen under rabbinic supervision and a meat one that is not. As many as 100 seniors who pay $3.50 for subsidized communal dinners catered by Kohn’s Kosher Meat and Deli Restaurant will have to opt for a dairy dinner if they want a kosher meal; meat meals will be made in-house, in the nonkosher kitchen.
Denison views the two cafes as a win-win: Kosher-observant families can enjoy a meal out together, and those who want more choices and affordable options can have that, too. “The key is to just be respectful,” she said, “and try to serve the whole gamut of those choices.”
Despite pressures to abandon kosher fare, some proponents are holding their ground, at least for now. When Alexander Ben-Israel became executive director of the 193-unit Moldaw Residences on the Taube Koret Center for Jewish Life in Palo Alto, California, three years ago, prepackaged kosher entrees were “miserable” and mushy. Ben-Israel brought the kosher program in-house, adding a mashgiach, multiple sets of dishes, and meat and dairy dishwashers. Participation doubled to about 25 residents.
“We had a philosophical commitment to the residents to offer kosher dining,” Ben-Israel said. “It’s just the right thing to do, that people who lived a kosher life all their lives would be able to continue to do it. … We call ourselves a Jewish facility, and it would feel kind of funny not offering it.”
But a nonkosher meal costs $15 to make, and a kosher one costs $27, adding an extra $70,000 a year to Moldow’s expenses. The facility is covering the difference for now, though it may eventually be passed on to residents.
In Jacksonville, kosher food costs River Garden an additional $300,000 a year even with staff—not rabbinic—supervision, “but that’s the cost of being who we are,” Goetz said. “We hold ourselves out to serve the entire community. … If Jews no longer connect with their synagogues, at least they are in a place that feels Jewish, does Jewish, and sounds Jewish, even if they’re not observant.” River Garden is Northeast Florida’s sole Jewish senior residence and nursing home.
Goetz, who has been CEO for 40 years, knows better than to ask the seniors what they want to eat. “We don’t put kosher on the agenda to be voted on by residents, because it would fail,” he said. “The residents here love bacon, ham, shrimp, and lobster.”
One day, some might get it. “I see the trend continuing away from kosher. I think it’s inexorable,” Goetz said. “I’m not willing to go out of business because I’m a kosher facility. If no one’ll come here because I’m kosher and it’s too expensive to serve it, I’d need to revisit our mission and our philosophy.”
***
This story originally appeared in Tablet magazine, at tabletmag.com, and is reprinted with permission.
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 advise 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!
Local News
Bark Mitzvah at the Simkin Centre August 13, 2026
By BERNIE BELLAN On a beautiful summer day at the Simkin Centre residents and family members – along with staff, were treated to a delightful “dog day afternoon” when scores of dogs were brought to the front courtyard outside the centre to celebrate what was titled a “Bark Mitzvah.”
Now, no dogs were called up to the podium to read from the Torah – or even to bark out a blessing, although as I canvassed many owners of dogs that were there – inquiring as to whether their dogs had received any special training for the day, I was pleased to hear that many dogs came from good “Jewish homes” and were good “Jewish” dogs. (I would suppose, in the case of our own dog that would mean that she’s been spoiled rotten.)
Some owners though maintained that their dogs had been brought up quite disciplined – although to be honest none of the dogs that I saw seemed to be be rigorously paying attention to any commands. Most were of the Goldedoodle, Yorkie variety. There was one rescue dog in the midst. It seemed quite confused, surrounded as it was by all those lap dogs.
The entire event was presided over – with great humour, but also a certain amount of seriousness, by Rabbi Matthew Leibl, who explained to the very large audience why having a special day celebrating dogs was entirely consistent with Jewish tradition.
Following is part of the transcription of an interview I conducted with Rabbi Lebil following his remarks explaining why he thought holding a “Bark Mitzvah” would be a good event to have. (You can watch the entire video at the end of this story. But where there was a great deal of laughter coming from people who were listening to my interview YouTube inserted the word “laughter” – which should give you an idea how fun an interview it was.)
As Rabbi Leibl explained to me, “I’ll tell you a serious story. When I was training – and I trained with Rabbi Annabal Mass… our teacher, Rabbi Steven Glade, encouraged everyone to consider a blessing of the animals ceremony because he said it’s a monster event. Just look around. It brought out so many people. It’s one of those events you can tie in loosely to a Jewish event – which it is. I mean we did it on Rosh Chodesh Elul- the new year of the animals and this whole idea it’s very similar to Tu B’Shvat- reimagining something old from Mishna to do it like this – but look at the attendance. I mean everyone wants to bring their dog and at a personal care home they say that music, babies, and dogs are the three biggest things that get through to everyone.”
I had to ask about kashrut, however (as I’ve been told repeatedly that kashrut is an essential element of the Simkin Centre – no matter how few residents may care about kashrut. Look – if I’m sent to cover something as frivolous as a “Bark Mitzvah” you can hardly expect me to refrain from going after my pet bugaboo at the Simkin Centre – and how ridiculous it is to require that the centre remain kosher when most of the residents could care less about kashrut), so I said to Rabbi Leibl: “No milk bones here, I hope. I expect that this is a strictly kosher event.”
His response: “I’m not sure. I wasn’t put in charge of that, so I can’t say. But no one’s going to be serving them any of the food that we eat. I can tell [laughter] you that.”
I said: “I’m not sure how to read that. [laughter].”
I asked whether there were Jewish dogs mixed in with non-Jewish dogs? (Dog assimilation is a serious issue.)
Rabbi Leibl replied: It’s inter denominational. [laughter] . I guess I don’t think we check to see if the dogs were uh circumcised. “
I asked: “Are we… [laughter] Are we mixing Jewish and non-Jewish dogs?”
Rabbi Leibl: “I don’t know that dogs have a faith. I’m not sure. I think they do. I think they’re of all faiths. ”
I asked: “Okay. And you know where bark mitzvahs originated?”
Rabbi Leibl: I’m sure it’s probably something silly.
Me: “It was gay guys in New York.”
Rabbi Leibl: ” Really?”
Me: ” Yes. Because they didn’t have kids. They started having bark mitzvahs.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That was probably more of an individual dog thing. This is a communal thing. It’s just a catchy title for publicity, Bernie. It’s the blessing of the animals. That’s the real thing.”
Me: “I was told that some of these dogs are on medication – as are many of the residents.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That’s low hanging fruit, Bellan. Low hanging fruit.”
Here’s the complete video of my interview:
