Features
The Dark Side of Albert: Einstein and Mileva Marić, his First Wife
By DAVID TOPPER Albert Einstein was the most photographed scientist of the 20th century. The scope of emotions depicted range from the serious to the silly: from looking like a secular saint with hands folded and deep in contemplation of supposedly solemn thoughts, to the image hanging in front of me on the bulletin board over my computer table, showing him sticking out his tongue at the cameraman. Living during the heyday of the development of the film camera, he and the press surely took advantage of it. The positive persona of the genius was formed out of these visual images. This visual disposition was supplemented with endless quotations on not only science and the universe, but also with homilies on life and how to live it, with much of that which you will find quoted, being things he never said. Overall, the general image of him and his personality has him coming out seemingly squeaky-clean.
Nonetheless, those of us who have looked into the man in more detail are aware of episodes of less than saintly behavior by Albert – the famous scientific idol. If, for example, you read any of the half-dozen or so lengthy biographies about him, you will find scattered therein stories of him speaking inappropriately or behaving, one might say, as a jerk. Having read all those books, and others – and even written three books on him myself – I knew this. So when I started reading a recent long biography of his first wife, Mileva Marić, I had no reason to think I’d be shocked, since I had already read a lot about her, including a book of letters to and from her best friend, which also contained a brief biography. But to my surprise, I was staggered in reading over 400 pages of his nasty behavior concentrated around this one woman – a woman whom he fell in love with as a university student, and who was the only mother of his children.
Here is the sad – and probably surprising to most readers – story of Mileva and Albert.
Mileva Marić was born on December 19, 1875, into a Christian Orthodox Serbian family. With a dislocated left hip, she walked with a limp throughout her life. (Her sister, Zorka, had the same congenital condition.) Forced to wear an orthopedic shoe, she was teased and mocked in school. Nonetheless, this very bright girl filled her lonely childhood with her studies (she was especially good at math) and piano lessons. Encouraged by a very loving father, she excelled in school, and was the first girl to attend high school physics courses in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After graduating in 1896, she applied to the prestigious Zurich Polytechnic, since in Switzerland women were admitted to all classes. She passed the entrance exam and majored in mathematics. It was a small freshman class of about two-dozen students, she being the only woman. That’s where she met, in the even smaller physics course, fellow student, Albert Einstein.
One of the earliest pictures we have of Mileva is dated 1897. In this portrait, I see a very serious, confident, determined woman with large penetrating eyes, a full crop of dark wavy hair and full lips. I would call her plain but attractive. I say this, because I was shocked at several instances when someone, upon first meeting Mileva, is quoted as describing her as “ugly.”
As a fellow student, Albert Einstein was attracted to her, and they quickly became a couple. He probably was the first male to take a romantic interest in her, overlooking her “handicap.” I suspect he was attracted to her gutsy attitude and her smartness. Plus, being Serbian, Mileva exuded an exotic “otherness” to the “German” in Albert. They spent most of their free time together, studying and falling in love. She did well in her courses, initially passing all of them, as Albert did too (of course). That is, until she was pregnant – a fact she tried to hide until she could not. And so she went home to her parents to inform them of this, and eventfully to have the baby.
Her parents were very supportive, which was unusual for the times. A girl was born early in 1902; they named her Lieserl (probably a Yiddish diminutive of Liese, a shortened Elizabeth). Albert stayed in Zurich and never saw his daughter; she was raised by Mileva’s parents, as Mileva returned to Zurich to continue her studies. No one knows what ultimately happened to Lieserl; she has seemingly vanished from all records. She may have died from Scarlet Fever as a child; or, she may have been adopted and grew up. One thing I do know: Mileva never forgot her. I believe that the loss of Lieserl is the major reason for Mileva’s depression and lingering melancholia throughout her life – as will be seen. As a result, she didn’t take care of her grooming and was a bit overweight – as seen in photos of her later in life. This, I suspect, may be a source of her “ugliness.”
Back to Zurich in the late 1890s and her studies: she passed all her courses over the first three years, and in her fourth year she started her thesis, hoping for a diploma and further work toward a PhD. But in 1900 she failed her final exams, while the other male students all passed. In July 1901 she repeated her final exams and flunked them again. I find it hard to believe that this sudden change in her performance was due to the tests being too tough for this woman, in light of all we know of her up to this time. Look at the last date above: she was pregnant with her child. I’m convinced that she just couldn’t concentrate on her studies. Albert passed, graduated, and started looking for a job – as well as working toward his PhD.

On January 6, 1903, they were married in a small civil ceremony. Mileva became a housewife; no more thinking of going any further in her studies. She then became the mother of two boys: Hans Albert (born in 1904) and Eduard (nicknamed Tete; in 1910).
All that promise came to nothing, not even a university degree. If she had not met Albert, who knows what she would have achieved? But that was not the path taken, and since she married what became the most famous scientist of the 20th century – if not the most famous person, as Time Magazine said at the end of the millennium – that’s why there is a plethora of documentation about her life, terribly sad as it was.
Now briefly fast forward a century or so, to around 1987, and the publication of the early love letters between Albert and Mileva, which had only been known by a few, and purposely suppressed. For example, Hans Albert, who had the letters much earlier, had wanted to publish them. But he was thwarted by Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan, who threatened litigation. Dukas was Albert’s lifelong secretary and Nathan was an economist and close friend, who eventually was the executor of Einstein’s will. And so, the letters never surfaced until Dukas and Nathan were both dead.
Even today, writing about these letters is an ideological minefield. Here’s why. The letters date from 1899 to 1903, when a new theory of physics was brewing in Albert’s mind. The result, in the so-called miracle year of 1905, was the publication of five papers that changed physics forever: two on what became his Theory of Relativity; one on a particle theory (much later called a photon) of light, as part of the emerging Quantum Theory; and two supporting the reality of atoms, which were still only hypothetical entities at this time. Knowing this, how much can we read into the love letters when Albert, in talking about his scientific ideas, uses “we” and “our work”? Well, it seems, a lot; for the initial response from primarily feminist quarters was that Mileva should at least be seen as a co-author of the famous papers, since it seemed that they conceived of the theory together. Given, as we will see, Albert’s shabby treatment of her later in life, then all the more sympathy was directed toward Mileva and her plight by history. Indeed, some went so far (you will still find websites saying this) that Albert stole the theory of relativity from Mileva. Nonetheless, after that initial flurry of debate, the consensus has moved away from this viewpoint, so that today the select scholars looking over the Einstein Papers Project in Pasadena, California assert unabashedly that Mileva made no input to Albert’s theory.
Nonetheless, I am one of the few “Einstein scholars” (if I may call myself such), who gives Mileva some credit in the 1905 marvel. She was good at mathematics, she had patience in her life and work, and she was a thorough researcher – all qualities severely lacking in Albert. Let me put it this way: over his life as a physicist, Einstein hired a series of companions (whom he called “calculators”) to do the tedious and complicated mathematics required for his theory, especially as it developed over the later years with the use of tensor calculus in his General Theory of Relativity. All were men; except, famously, his last calculator was the Israeli-American woman, Buria Kaufmann – about whom you will read in the literature as his “first female calculator.” (Incidentally, there is a website giving her credit for Einstein’s later theory, which is complete fiction.) I, however, would assert that Buria was the second woman; for Mileva was Albert’s first “calculator.” She was also his researcher and proofreader. Since she knew the physics, as we know from the letters, she also was his sounding-board – Albert bouncing ideas off of Mileva, as they say.
So, what about Albert speaking of “we” and “our work”? Let me put this into context by quoting from some of the letters in chronological order. In a letter Mileva wrote to Helene Savić (née Kaufler), her closest and longest friend throughout her life (they roomed together in a boarding house in Zurich when they were students), she speaks of a paper “written” by Albert that will be published soon that is “very significant.” She then says that “we” sent it to an important physicist – revealing how much she was involved with Albert’s work. Later in a letter from Albert to Mileva, let me quote from the opening lines to give you a trace of their intimacy: “Thank you very much for your little letter and all the true love that’s in it. I kiss and hug you for it from all my heart, exactly the way you would want it & are entitled to, love.” He then goes into a discussion of other people, followed by his going back to how much they love each other, and ending with this key sentence. “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion.” I put in italics the famous (or is it infamous?) phrase: our work. But there’s nothing more on this, although a bit later in the letter he goes on to talk about another physics problem he is working on: specific heats. He discusses the physics problem in detail, with equations and his proposed solution, and he ends the topic with this: “Don’t forget to look up to what extent glass obeys the law of Dulong and Petit.” My guess is that it was this sort of task that was part of their work together. The letter ends where it began. “Tender greetings and kisses, my dear little dumpling, from your … Albert.”
I’ll leave the topic there, nonetheless aware of the possibility that Mileva did help Albert in even more significant ways, and that hence she’s been slighted by history.
Back to Zurich in 1903. Initially, their life together was harmonious, a reflection of the camaraderie in the love letters, as she kept house and raised her boys. But by around 1909, when Albert was being seen as an important physicist, there clearly was a severe strain on the marriage. For example, in a letter that year to Helene, she says that Albert “lives only for his work” and the family is “unimportant to him.” By 1914, when they moved to Berlin for Albert’s prestigious position at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics, their marriage entered a new phase. In fact, Albert had been having relations with a divorced cousin, Elsa Löwenthal, who lived in Berlin. Moreover, Albert made it clear to Mileva that their previous relationship was over. He went so far as to give her a list of demands: that she do the laundry, prepare him three meals a day, and keep his office clean – all without any personal relations. No intimacy in the house, and no being together in public. It was degradingly cruel: Mileva’s role was reduced to being a maid and cook. She tried to accept it, but quickly found that she couldn’t endure the humiliation; and so she took her two boys back to Zurich, where she remained for the rest of her life.
They officially divorced in 1919, and Albert immediately married Elsa – all in the same year that he became the world-famous scientist, because of the solar eclipse experiment that proved that light from a star is bent around the sun, as predicted by his theory. He got the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 and transferred the money to a bank in Zurich for the support of their boys, where Mileva had access to the interest in the account.
What happened after all that infatuation seen in the love letters and in their early life together? In retrospect, Mileva surely realized that she had ignored or overlooked what we might call the dark side of Albert. As a student he was overly sarcastic, often mocking and even degrading people whom he saw as inadequate or not too smart. He even teased her in ways that revealed an underlying hostility. When she pointed this out, he would laugh it off – and she’d forgive him. In a letter to Helena in 1900 she writes of Albert’s “wicked words with deeds! What an insolent boy he is, and yet I love him so much!” Telling words. Even after the acrimonious divorce, she still, as will be seen, was under Albert’s spell. I believe that she never got over that initial infatuation when they were students. It became a pattern: she was always trying to get on his good side.
Overall, Albert was very much a 19th century male chauvinist in his attitude and communications with women. Here are some of his words about women that reveal his overt misogyny: they are “passive, insecure, needy, and wanting to be dominated.” I knew that he liked to flirt with women throughout his life. But seeing him do so with other wives, with Mileva present, made it less frivolous and more malicious. In short, he was a cad and a rake, rolled into one.
The turnaround in their relationship seemed to bring out the worst in him. He was petty and vindictive, and especially very cruel towards her. There is no direct evidence of any real physical abuse. However, there was an incident in the spring of 1913 when a friend reported seeing Mileva with a badly swollen face, which was attributed to a “toothache” – and hence she and Albert missed some social events. Possibly the swollen face was a sign of something more malevolent, but we will never know the truth. Nonetheless, pondering this, I wish to quote something Albert wrote in a letter in 1925: “Not only children need a bit of thrashing, but also grownups and especially women.” And I’ll leave it there.
After the divorce, he accused her of poisoning his relationship with the boys – a common trope between divorcing couples. But it got more vicious as her financial situation became grave, and she asked for more money. She made some extra money tutoring students in math and giving piano lessons. But it wasn’t enough. Albert’s letters to her contain nasty personal attacks: saying she is “abnormal,” a “nonentity,” and that her pleading is “rubbish.” I can only imagine how Mileva felt being called this. At the time, she was in severe physical pain with chronic back problems, often forcing her into bed for long periods, even stays in hospital, when she was trying to raise two boys alone. Moreover, all this was exacerbated by problems in her Serbian family. Her sister Zorka was diagnosed as schizophrenic and was in and out of asylums; her only living brother disappeared into Russia after World War I; and her parents had serious financial problems.
Could it get any worse? It could. And it did. Tete became a handful. He was very bright and creative; he had musical talent on the piano, and he wrote promising poems and stories. But he was also prone to falling into depressive episodes, for apparently no reason – anger fits, throwing things, being out of control. I suppose Mileva saw this coming: Tete, like her sister, eventually was diagnosed as schizophrenic.
Albert, of course, knew all this, but being in Berlin, he didn’t have to deal with it. He did make occasional visits and took summer trips with the boys (giving Mileva short breaks), all while he was still living in Europe. But when he moved to Princeton, N.J., in 1933, with Hitler in power in Germany and Einstein’s name being high on a hit list, their meetings were over; until 1938, when Hans Albert (now with a wife and two children) moved to the USA. The last meeting between Albert and Tete is recorded in a 1933 photograph that bears a close look. Both are seated in a room, with Tete looking over a large, open portfolio – perhaps reading it. Albert is facing in a different direction (about 90-degrees away), holding a violin and bow, and staring off into space. It may be that Tete is reading to him, but more likely they are inhabiting two different worlds.
In the years during World War II, living in Zurich, Switzerland (a country surrounded by a Nazi-occupied Europe), Mileva was terrified that the Nazis would swoop up this last free space. Moreover, she knew that they were rounding up Jews by the trainloads and moving them to Concentration Camps. She was somewhat safe as an Orthodox Christian, but Tete was “Jewish,” being a child of Einstein. She wrote pleading letters to Albert, asking him to take Tete to the USA. She even contacted the Red Cross, and they agreed that the best bet was to get Albert to sponsor him. “Bring us to safety,” she wrote. But being Mileva – ever still the dutiful wife, even though they had been divorced for two decades – she added (and I assert that she was not being sarcastic in saying this), “[I am] not intending to disturb your peace and freedom.” Petrified that “Tete is in danger because he is your son,” she concluded: “you can’t just leave him in the lurch.”
In fact, Einstein, Dukas, and Nathan were diligently rescuing Jews from Europe by using Einstein’s name to get emigration papers and such. Albert once spoke of this, saying that they were running a little refugee office over his cluttered “lawyer’s desk.” And they did save lives. Relevant here is a 1939 letter from Albert to Helena on this very topic. Helena’s father was Jewish, and she had numerous relatives whose lives were in peril, and so apparently, she was asking Albert for help. He wrote in response. “How gladly would I help! But I am desperately trying to at least get younger people out. Relocation of old people must under present horrible conditions be set aside.” In the end, we know of two aunts of Helena who died in gas chambers. Interestingly, in this same letter, Albert mentions that Hans is now in America, but that Tete is with Mileva in Zurich, saying that Tete is “incurably mentally ill.”
So, what about Tete? And Mileva’s pleading letters? As far as we know, these pleading requests were never answered. Albert, it seems, did leave his son “in the lurch.” My guess is that he just couldn’t fathom the chaos in his life of dealing with someone with such a severe mental illness. Listen to what he later wrote to Hans about Tete after learning of Mileva’s death. “If I had been fully informed [apparently referring here to what he saw as a genetic mental illness in Mileva’s family], he [Tete] would never have come into the world.” I can only imagine how Hans must have felt after reading these appalling words from his father about his beloved brother. Sometimes Albert’s behavior is plainly pathetic. Fortunately, the Nazis never invaded Switzerland.
Much of Mileva’s adult life was centred on Tete, as she watched him descend into the depths of mental illness. Overweight and chain-smoking, he was in and out of mental institutions. For Mileva, he was a full-time job. She, being the caring mother, was obsessed with making sure he would be safe after she died. And she succeeded; for seven years after his mother died, he lived in the renowned Burghölzli psychiatric clinic in Zurich. He was 55 when he died.
I believe Mileva never got over two things: the loss of Lieserl and her infatuation with Albert. We don’t know what happened to Lieserl; but Mileva surely did, and it haunted her all of her life; as seen, she flunked her final chance for a university degree because of it. Lieserl was a source of her constant despondent behaviour and possibly her so-called “ugliness.” In a letter to Helena in 1925 she wrote of “my unfulfilled desire for a daughter”– another telling phrase, since she had a daughter, but was forced to abandon her.
Regarding Albert, no matter how abusive he was, Mileva still was open to forgiveness. She once asked herself this question: “When has a man ever listened to reason, when a woman is involved?” She should have listened to her own words.
Mileva Marić died on August 4, 1948, at the age of 72.
This story of Albert falling in and out of love with Mileva was not the first such episode in his life. It was previewed by and even overlapped with his first sweetheart: Marie Winteler.
In 1895 he spent a year enrolled in the cantonal school in the town of Aarau, near Zurich. He had taken the rigorous entrance exams for the Polytechnic (which Mileva later passed) and had flunked the non-science and non-math parts. But since he did so well on the science and math parts, it was recommended that he do a year of make-up in Aarau; plus, he was applying at age 16, a year early. He boarded with the family of Jost Winteler, a teacher at the school. Jost and Pauline had three daughters, the prettiest being Marie, two years older than Albert. Albert quickly fell for her, and she for him. She was an accomplished pianist, and so their love interests were supplemented with piano and violin duets. After that year, and after passing the entrance requirement at the Polytechnic, Albert moved to Zurich – where he met Mileva, and then broke off with Marie. In short, he jilted her, as he would later do with Mileva.
Marie, however, thought the relationship was to be forever, and wrote pleading letters when he stopped writing to her. After all, he was still mailing her his dirty laundry to wash and send back. (I am not making this up.) Being deeply hurt, she fell into a depression that (may have) plagued her throughout her life. She became a schoolteacher (whose records show that she missed a lot of classes due to sickness); in 1911 she married a man whose first name was Albert. They had two boys, but divorced in 1927. We also know that she tried to reach the first Albert in the 1940s about emigrating to the USA, but there is no record of his having received her letters. (Albert’s secretary was known to censor his mail.) She died in a mental institution in 1957, two years after Einstein died.
I mention this for two reasons. One, the obvious – this being a preview to the story of Albert’s shabby treatment of Mileva and the parallel terrible consequences. The other reason is the dirty laundry. This, also obviously, needs to be explained.
In 2019 I published an historical novel on Einstein’s life, called A Solitary Smile. In it, Marie is one of the characters, especially near the end and in a dream sequence that has Einstein recalling their time together, where he realizes how he hurt her. In recalling this part of my book, while writing this story of Mileva, and now Marie again – I suddenly realized that I didn’t include the dirty laundry bit. Why? I knew it then, as I do now. So why not mention it? Ruminating on this, I can only surmise that I was subconsciously protecting Albert from more scorn. Why dig up all the dirt (seemingly, literally in this case). How interesting this is. Me, being part of the problem. Protecting Albert’s image.
Well, I caught myself. And here I acknowledge my error – to supplement my saga on the dark side of Albert Einstein.
* * *
Readings: Mileva Marić Einstein: Life with Albert Einstein, by Radmila Milentijević (United World Press, 2010). In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić: Einstein’s First Wife, edited by Milan Popović (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). A Solitary Smile: A Novel on Einstein, by David R. Topper (Bee Line Press, 2019).
Features
Cheap Weed In Canada: A Smart Shopper’s Guide
Since legalisation, cannabis has settled into Canadian life as an ordinary, regulated purchase. And like groceries or gas, the price can vary a surprising amount from one shop to the next once you start comparing.
For a lot of buyers, that has turned the focus to value. Affordable options like cheap weed prove a lower price and a tested, quality product can go together. This guide explains how to shop smart in Canada without cutting corners.
Why Has Affordable Cannabis Become So Popular?
Because the novelty has worn off, and buyers now shop like they do for anything else. In the early days, people paid whatever the new legal stores asked. That has changed.
A few things drove that shift:
- A maturing market, with more retailers competing on price.
- Online sellers, whose lower overhead keeps costs down.
- Savvier buyers, who now compare rather than grab the first option.
- A wider range of formats and budget-friendly bulk sizes.
The result is a real focus on getting value for money. Crowdsourced figures put the early average near $6.85 a gram, and cannabis price data from Statistics Canada shows how legal and illegal prices have differed since 2018.
That gap is exactly why shopping around pays off. A careful buyer can pay noticeably less than a careless one for a comparable product. The sticker price is only where the comparison starts.
How Do Canadians Shop for Cheaper Weed?
With the same care they bring to any regular expense. A handful of habits make the biggest difference. These are the ones worth adopting:
- Compare the per-gram price. It is the only fair way to weigh two options.
- Buy larger formats. Bigger quantities almost always lower the unit cost.
- Skip premium markups. Plain flower beats pricey pre-rolls for value.
- Watch for sales. Online retailers run them often, especially on holidays.
- Match potency to the plan. A stronger product means you use less each time.
None of these involve settling for a worse product. They simply put your money to better use, the same way you would stretch your money on any other purchase. The cheapest sticker is rarely the best value, and the priciest is seldom worth it.
The same logic applies whether you shop in person or online in Canada. Read the label, weigh the cost per gram, and let the numbers guide you rather than the branding.
Is There a Catch With Low-Priced Cannabis?
Not in the legal market, which is the part newcomers miss. In Canada, every legal product is tested and labelled to the same standard, whatever it costs.
That means a budget option from a licensed seller has cleared the same checks as a premium one. It is screened for contaminants, and its potency is verified. Price reflects branding, packaging, and store margins far more than basic safety.
The genuine differences are in the finer points. Premium flower might offer a better aroma or a richer flavour, and some formats simply cost more to make. For everyday use, though, a well-priced choice usually performs just fine.
The real catch is buying outside the legal system. Health Canada’s overview of the Cannabis Act is a sensible read on what legal really means. Buying legal protects you, not buying expensive.
What Makes a Cheap Purchase a Smart One?
A couple of quick checks, mostly. A real bargain holds up to a second look, while a false one does not. The table below shows what to weigh.
| Check | Why It Matters |
| Is the seller licensed? | Only legal retailers guarantee tested product |
| What is the per-gram cost? | The headline price can hide a weak deal |
| Is potency on the label? | Higher strength can stretch your money |
| Are there bulk or sale deals? | These usually beat single-unit pricing |
| What does delivery cost? | Shipping can erase an online saving |
Any shaky answer there is a reason to pause. A licensed seller with clear pricing and labelling is the safe choice, while a suspiciously cheap unlicensed source is not. The legal age applies regardless, at 18 or 19 depending on the province.
Treat cannabis like any other considered purchase. Compare, check the details, and let value rather than habit lead the decision. That is how modest savings add up across a whole year.
Before You Buy
- Cannabis prices vary widely by retailer, format, and store overhead.
- Comparing the per-gram cost is the fairest way to judge value.
- All legal Canadian cannabis is tested, so cheaper is not unsafe.
- Bulk buys, sales, and plain formats keep spending down.
- Always buy from a licensed source, and factor in delivery fees.

Photo by Jakub Zerdzicki on Pexels
Alt text: A shopper comparing prices online at home
Smart Savings, No Compromise
Buying affordable cannabis in Canada is not about chasing the lowest number you can find. It is about understanding what shapes the price and shopping with a little intention. Stick to licensed, tested products, compare the real cost per gram, and lean on bulk deals and online pricing. Do that, and an affordable choice stays a smart one, purchase after purchase.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Cheap Weed Safe to Buy In Canada?
Yes, provided it comes from a licensed retailer. All legal cannabis in Canada is tested for contaminants and labelled for potency, regardless of price. A lower cost usually reflects branding and overhead rather than weaker safety, so a budget option from a legal seller is still a safe one.
How Do I Find the Best Cannabis Deals?
Compare the per-gram price, buy larger formats, and watch for sales from online retailers. Checking potency against price helps too, since a stronger product can mean you use less. The key is shopping deliberately instead of defaulting to the same brand or store each time.
Why Is Cannabis Cheaper Online?
Online sellers usually carry lower overhead than physical stores, and they run sales and bulk deals more often. That lets them price competitively while still selling tested, legal product. Just remember to factor in shipping, which can offset the saving on a small order.
Does Paying More Mean Better Cannabis?
Not necessarily. Price reflects branding, format, and store margins as much as quality, and all legal product meets the same testing standards. Premium options may offer a better aroma or appearance, but a well-priced choice often works just as well day to day.
Features
Author and lifelong nurse Tilda Shalof’s new book a guide not only for young nurses but one that will appeal to a wider readership
By MYRON LOVE Tilda Shalof’s most recent book – “The Handover – a Nurse’s Last Shift” was, in the words of its author, “written for the general public, to understand nursing. Nursing is everyone’s concern, not just nurses. The general public has a stake in the matter,” she observes.
I can guarantee that there are plenty of stories and anecdotes that the author shares from her own experiences that will also be of interest to a wider readership. I certainly enjoyed the book.
The title – “The Handover,” she explains, is the regular exchange between nurses going off their shift and the nurses beginning the next shift, during which the outgoing nurses pass on all relevant information about the patients under their care to the incoming nurses. A recurring thread throughout the book – of close to 400 pages – is the retiring Shalof’s interaction with three student nurses whom she had recently befriended through one of her many speaking engagements. In particular, Shalof gives co-writing credit to one Lisa Mochrie – a nurse who the author acted as mentor to during Mochrie’s last period as a student and continuing through her early nursing career.
There is a tendency for many people to take for granted people I would describe as working in a service capacity such as nursing. One of the reasons that Shalof points out in her book for our ongoing nursing shortages is that young men and women are more likely to be encouraged to pursue a medical career (to be a doctor) than a nurse. This, she points out, despite the fact that hospitals can function without doctors – but not without nurses.
Some other factors, she notes, are the ever increasing demands of documentation – which detract from patient care – and regulations, which have taken much of the satisfaction out of the profession.
In an interview with this writer, she observes that Jewish nurses are few and far between because nursing is not a profession that most Jewish families encourage. (I can only name a handful of Jewish nurses that I have known or have come across.)
She spoke about how she became a nurse early in life to her aged and ailing parents – being the only daughter – (she has three older brothers) and the last of her siblings to leave home. In “The Handover”, she also makes frequent reference to fictional nurse Cherry Ames – the heroine of numerous books written between 1943 and 1968 – as inspiration for Shalof’s choice of career.
For the first 30 years as a nurse, Shalof worked in an intensive care ward at Toronto General Hospital. She subsequently worked for a short time at an HIV clinic and, later a hospital day clinic and a neurosurgery unit. She also spent several summers as a camp nurse at a Jewish camp while her kids were campers there.
“The Handover” is Shalof’s seventh book. Her first book, published in 2004, was “A Nurse’s Story,” chronicling her experiences over 30 years as an ICU nurse. Among her other books are:“Camp Nurse,” recounting anecdotes from her time working summers at her children’ summer camps, and “Opening My Heart” – an account of the profession from the point of view of a patient after she had open heart surgery.
Coincidently, she notes, she began her first book around the time of the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003. Shalof says she started writing her latest book at the height of the Covid lockdowns, which she references from time to time in the book. .
The approach Shalof has taken in writing “The Handover” – following a foreword and introduction – is literally an A to Z overview of everything there is to know about nursing – with each chapter focusing on one specific letter of the alphabet. Each chapter relates her thoughts and tells anecdotes from her own nursing experiences over 40 years in the profession, as well as her interactions with Lisa Mochrie and the other two student nurses as they transition from students to professionals.
In her conclusion, she observes that “nursing can be a path to making a difference – having an impact. It can be a front row seat at the theatre of life. Or it can be a job, a way to make a living and help support your family. “
Most importantly, she added, “make sure you try to have some fun. Do everything in your power to enjoy being a nurse”.
Although the now 67-yeear-old author is retired from the practice of nursing, she remains in demand as a speaker and advisor. She continues to get calls from throughout North America seeking her advice.“The Handover” is available from the University of Toronto Press.
Features
Michael Mitchell: His Labour of Love in Law
By GERRY POSNER The Mitchell name in Winnipeg has been around a long time and much of the the name recognition stems from the long connection of the family to a business known as Mitchell Fabrics, a mainstay on Main Street for many years. Established by Mendel Mitchell generations ago and not closed until 2017, many family members, including in-laws, worked there as managers, students and retirees. And yet, the family vocation was not limited to just the business, t it stretched out into the world of law, and more specifically the field of labour Law. One particular Mitchell reached the peak of all aspects of Labour Law. Three Mitchells: Leon, son Grant (a senior management side labour lawyer in Winnipeg), and daughter April Katz (an academic at the University of Victoria Law School), had stellar careers in that field. Yet another Mitchell, Michael, also achieved great acclaim as a labour lawyer. Michael, a product of the south end of Winnipeg, is the son of the late Harry and Gertrude (Sirluck) Mitchell, so he has some impressive genes going for him. But he has added to the story immeasurably.
Perhaps it all began for Michael Mitchell when he graduated from what was the first and only Grade 7 Hebrew school class at Herzlia Academy. He later was Regional Vice-President of AZA in his teenage years. After two years at Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate and two more at Grant Park High School, Mitchell went off to the University of Manitoba for his first year and then on to the University of Toronto, where he obtained a BA in Political Science. Then came law school, also at the University of Toronto, from where he graduated with an LLB in 1975. Along the way, he married the former Lynne Berman ( also from Winnipeg).That union produced three Mitchell daughters, two of whom are physicians – in psychiatry and neurology respectively, while the third is a pioneering pre-school educator. Michael and Lynne also have six grandchildren.
For a large part of his career as a lawyer, Michael Mitchell practiced law in Toronto as a senior partner in the firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell – from 1980 through 2014, having joined the firm in 1975 as a student. The firm was committed to the union side practice of Labour and Employment Law. Not so surprisingly, he had to appear at all levels of courts, also administrative tribunals.To his credit, his work and impressive track record was recognized by his peers as he was named a leading labour lawyer in Canadian Lexpert Directory and was frequently recommended in Best Lawyers in Canada. Between 1982- 2006, Mitchell was also the managing partner of the firm, which suggests to me an ability to manage people, not an insignificant skill. During his tenure as the managing partner, the law firm grew from just under ten lawyers to over fifty, with offices in both Toronto and Ottawa. His responsibilities were firm leadership, strategic decision making and financial management.
But, what a career Mitchell has had. For starters, aside from his time as a practicing lawyer in the field of labour law, he has, since his leaving the practice, just changed hats. From 2015 to 2018, he was part time Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and, from 2018 as of this moment, he has become full time Vice-Chair at the same Ontario Labour Relations Board. Needless to say that, over the course of his administrative work since 2015, Mitchell has been at the centre of some significant decisions and, if you are interested, I can direct you to the selected substantive decisions in which Mitchell has been involved.
Moreover, Mitchell has worked and continues to work in the area of mediation and arbitration of both labour and indeed civil law. This is a large area, to put it mildly. For starters, there is the entire field of grievance arbitration. To be involved in cases of this kind, your name has to be put up by one of the parties and often agreed to by the other party. That means you have credibility with both of the protagonists. Mitchell clearly has that kind of reputation and draws support from both sides of the aisles – as it is referred to in some circles. He has been an arbitrator/ referee in many cases, including the famous 1986-1990 Class Action settlement related to individuals who had contracted Hepatitis C. Further, he has conducted numerous civil mediations related to employment, contracts and human rights matters. Mitchell also mediates and arbitrates collective bargaining disputes.
One of Mitchell’s’ main achievements was that he was invited between 2015-2017 to be a Special Advisor (with capital letters, no less) to the Ontario Minister of Labour with regard to the Changing Workplace Review. This was a landmark review of the Ontario Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act where he, together with Justice John Murray, recommended many legislative changes to protect workers from the negative impacts of precarious employment. The best part of his work was that many of th recommendations were actually adopted. Other recommendations remain for future governments across the country to consider.
If you really want to delve into the Michael Mitchell career, you should know that, over the span of his career there are many publications that he has authored. The main one is his textbook on the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which he co-authored with his early mentor, Jeffrey Sack, and which remains the leading authority on the Ontario Board.
Mitchell comes by his passion for labour law honestly. His uncle, Leon Mitchell, was an iconic force on the union side in his practice of law in Winnipeg and was the inspiration for Michael to enter law to become a labour lawyer in the first place. In fact, it was Leon who introduced Michael to a man in Toronto who recommended Michael to connect with an up and coming labour lawyer in Toronto named Jeffrey Sack K.C. That connection resulted in the Sack Goldblatt Mitchell law firm. As well, Michael was well known to Sid Green during the early years of Sid’s law career, also his early days as a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer NDP government. Sid was a person who exerted a significant influence on Michael.
With all that on his plate, Mitchell found time to be the president of the Darchei Noam Synagogue in Toronto between 2004-2008. He has also been the president of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation of North America. During his term, he led the merger negotiations which ultimately resulted in the current structure of that movement ,which is now referred to as Reconstructing Judaism. Its singular aspect is that it consists of a single organization combining congregations plus a Rabbinical School. That was enough to get Mitchell an invitation to attend one of President Obama’s Chanukah parties at the White House during the Obama term. As well, to this day, Mtchell sits as a Director of the New Israel Fund of Canada.
Mitchell has his feet still planted in Winnipeg. His two sisters live there, as well as Lynne’s sister. In fact, he just visited Winnipeg for his sister Ruth Ann’s and Paula’s 85th and 80th birthdays respectively. And to keep up to date, Michael and Lynne Mitchell have long had a subscription to the Jewish Post.
In short, at just under 80, Michael Mitchell is moving like he is eighteen. The longevity of his career may soon rival the longevity of the family business, Mitchell Fabrics.

