By BERNIE BELLAN This story was originally posted August 14, but with the date of the court battle soon approaching we thought it timely to repost it to the top of our website.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s how it read when it was first posted: When we first posted this story Friday morning, August 14 \u2013 with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue, we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:<\/p>\n
\u201cHi Bernie.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul.\u00a0 We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n
\u201cThank you so much for your understanding,<\/p>\n
\u201cMorissa\u201d<\/p>\n
We replied: <\/p>\n
\u201cGee Morissa \u2013 I\u2019ll 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\u2019ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses \u2013 also photos! \u00a0Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can\u2019t be too careful, can we?<\/p>\n
Now, here\u2019s the story as it was originally posted:<\/p>\n
\u00a0The 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 \u2013 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim \u2013 and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.<\/p>\n
But, a second issue in play \u2013 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: \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated \u2013 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:
\u201cHi Bernie,
\u201cI 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cShabbat shalom,
\u201cDavid.\u201d<\/p>\n
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:
\u201cOn 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.
\u201cThese individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue\u2019s programs or activities.\u201d
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.<\/p>\n
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
\u201cHi,
\u201cI 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.
\u201cI don\u2019t know David at all \u2013 other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can\u2019t 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?
\u201c-Bernie Bellan
\u201cPublisher,
\u201cjewishpostandnews.ca
\u201calso Associate Editor,
\u201cThe Jewish Post Winnipeg\u201d<\/p>\n
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that \u201ctroubling correspondence\u201d which was received by CEC.<\/p>\n
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 \u201ctroubling correspondence.\u201d
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: \u201cCongregation Etz Chayim \u2026has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar\u2019s 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.\u201d 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, \u201cvolunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC \u2026is \u2018a Zionist organization\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar\u2019s family\u2019s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question \u2013 until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar\u2019s 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:
\u201cIn 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.
\u201cOn 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\u2026
\u201cLater 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 \u2018for my own peace of mind\u2019 I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.\u201d)
\u201cOn November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald\u2026
\u201cWhile 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 \u2018ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel\u2019 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.\u201d
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\u2019s objection to Emet Eviatar\u2019s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC\u2019s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar\u2019s or her the family\u2019s membership.)
\u201cThis 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\u2019 ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.\u201d In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: \u201cStill, her family\u2019s membership was never in question.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201csite security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
\u201cAmong other things, he advised:
\u201ca) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
\u201cb) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;\u201d<\/p>\n
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, \u201cDuring discussion relating to security protocols\u2026David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.\u201d<\/p>\n
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: \u201cOn May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
\u2018If, 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\u2026\u201d (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, \u201cIn that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as \u2018hysteria,\u2019 \u2018paranoia,\u2019 and \u2018psychologically stupid.\u2019 \u201c<\/p>\n
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, \u201cMy 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.\u201d
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: \u201cCongregation 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King\u2019s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared \u201cnull and void,\u201d also seeking an \u201corder to comply with bye-laws\u201d (of the CEC).<\/p>\n
In response, CEC asserts that it \u201chas never terminated the Applicants\u2019 membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.\u201d Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC \u201cexercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.\u2019
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn\u2019t \u201cterminated the Applicants\u2019 membership,\u201d yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC\u2019s position that, based on the plaintiffs\u2019 claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts \u2013 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 \u2013 as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC \u201cterminated\u201d 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 \u201cWe have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.\u201d
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC\u2019s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there \u201cprovisions for the termination of membership.\u201d Therefore, their argument goes, \u201cCEC had no authority to terminate their membership.\u201d
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: \u201cThe defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC\u2019s governing constitution says that \u201cdirectors \u2018may pass by-laws\u2019 regulating, among other things, \u2018the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.\u2019 The word \u2018may\u2019 is permissive.\u201d
\u201cThus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.\u201d<\/p>\n
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership \u201chad not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that \u201cthe 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.\u201d
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that \u201cThese 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\u2019s programs or activities\u201d was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\n Post Views: 2,478<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By BERNIE BELLAN This story was originally posted August 14, but with the date of the court battle…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":921214,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194296],"tags":[49,48,22073],"class_list":["post-921213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-winnipeg","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-winnipeg"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/921213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=921213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/921213\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/921214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=921213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=921213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=921213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}