Should synagogues have the right to decide who can be a member, even if that means expelling longtime congregants over disagreements about Israel, politics or security? A Manitoba court has just answered that question, and the decision may come as a surprise to anyone who believes that paying synagogue dues guarantees them a place in the pews.
A Winnipeg synagogue has won a court battle against two longtime members it expelled following a bitter dispute over Israel and security, despite a judge finding that a controversial letter describing a potential armed attack on the congregation was not intended as a threat.
In an October 23 ruling, Justice Toews of the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench dismissed a legal challenge brought by Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult against Congregation Etz Chayim, a Conservative synagogue in Winnipeg. The couple had been expelled in May 2025 following increasingly contentious disagreements with synagogue leadership over the war in Gaza, political associations and security precautions.
The dispute began following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, when Eviatar became increasingly involved in public criticism of Israel’s military campaign.
Eviatar, who had been active in the congregation for decades and regularly participated in religious services, helped establish the Manitoba chapter of Standing Together, an Israeli-Palestinian organization opposed to the war in Gaza.
She also appeared on CBC Radio alongside Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba, who had previously made controversial statements about the October 7 attacks and shared social media posts referring to “demonic Zionists.”
According to court documents, synagogue leadership objected to Eviatar’s public associations, particularly while she was serving in a volunteer leadership position representing the congregation. Following one of her CBC appearances in October 2024, she was informed that she could no longer lead certain religious services, a role she had held for more than 20 years.
Eviatar alleged that the synagogue’s rabbi suggested she consider finding another congregation more aligned with her views.
The synagogue maintained that it had not taken action against her membership because of her political opinions, but had concerns about the individuals with whom she publicly associated.
The situation escalated in May 2025 when Hoult challenged additional security measures introduced by the synagogue following recommendations from Winnipeg police.
The measures included locked and monitored entrances, advance registration for Shabbos services and security personnel. Hoult argued that the precautions were ineffective and created unnecessary fear among congregants.
At the synagogue’s annual general meeting on May 5, he proposed eliminating the new security arrangements. His motion failed after no other member agreed to second it.
Later that month, Hoult sent synagogue officials a letter describing how an armed attacker could potentially target the congregation despite the additional precautions.
The letter included a graphic hypothetical scenario involving an attacker arriving on a motorcycle, firing through synagogue windows and shooting congregants before escaping.
The correspondence arrived shortly after the May 21, 2025 murder of two Israeli Embassy employees outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, an attack that had heightened security concerns at Jewish institutions across North America.
Synagogue officials considered Hoult’s letter sufficiently alarming to contact Winnipeg police and consult Jewish security organizations.
On May 30, two police officers visited the couple’s home and informed them that they were prohibited from entering the synagogue. That same day, Congregation Etz Chayim notified its membership that the couple and members of their household were no longer permitted on synagogue property or allowed to participate in its programs and activities.
Eviatar and Hoult challenged the decision in court, arguing that the congregation had no authority under its governing bylaws to terminate their membership. They also alleged that they had received no opportunity to defend themselves before being expelled.
The couple maintained that the real reason for their removal was their opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza rather than any genuine security threat.
Congregation Etz Chayim rejected that allegation, arguing that the decision involved the safety of its members and its authority to govern its own religious affairs.
In his October 23 decision, Justice Toews made a significant finding concerning the letter that prompted the security complaint.
He concluded that Hoult had not intended to threaten the congregation, but was attempting to demonstrate what he considered weaknesses in the synagogue’s security arrangements.
The judge described the example as potentially ill-advised but found that it was not intended to communicate a threat of violence.
Nevertheless, the court dismissed the couple’s application.
Justice Toews ruled that Canadian courts generally cannot intervene in membership disputes involving voluntary religious organizations unless a civil, property or other legally recognized interest is at stake.
The couple’s membership did not confer the type of legal rights that would permit the court to overturn the synagogue’s decision, even if they believed the congregation had failed to follow its own procedures.
The judge also rejected their attempt to use provisions of Manitoba’s Corporations Act to challenge the expulsion.
The court did not determine whether political disagreements or security concerns were the actual motivation for the couple’s removal, finding that it was unnecessary to resolve those competing allegations in order to decide the case.
Each side was ordered to pay its own legal costs.
The ruling leaves Eviatar and Hoult barred from a congregation that had been part of their lives for decades, despite the judge’s finding that Hoult’s controversial letter was not intended as a threat.
The court did not determine whether the expulsions were motivated by legitimate security concerns or by disagreements over Israel. It didn’t have to. Without an enforceable civil or property right at stake, the judge concluded that the synagogue’s membership decisions were not for the courts to overturn.
For Canadian congregations, the decision is a significant affirmation of their independence. For anyone who believes that paying synagogue dues guarantees a voice, a vote or even a place in the pews, it delivers a considerably less comforting message: a synagogue can decide it no longer wants you as a member, and the courts may have very little to say about it.
Leave a Reply