Judge won't intervene in case of Winnipeg synagogue vs. congregants opposed to Gaza war - National Post

Canada News Judge won’t intervene in case of Winnipeg synagogue vs. congregants opposed to Gaza war Join the conversation Share Close Share this article

Copy URL Facebook Linked In X (Twitter) Loading account options Sign In Manage Account Close account menu Sign Out A judge ruled that the court won't intervene in a case involving a synagogue that revoked the membership of two congregants. (Diane Crocker / Contributed) By Courtney Greenberg November 3, 2026 at 8:34 a.m. A Winnipeg judge has ruled that a synagogue can revoke the membership of two congregants who became activists against Israel’s war in Gaza.

Congregation Etz Chayim revoked the membership last year of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult, a married couple who had been members of the synagogue for more than 30 years.

They took it to court, arguing their membership was revoked due to their criticism of Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas. However, the synagogue alleges the pair were banned after one of them wrote a threatening letter.

At the heart of the case was whether the termination was unlawful under the province’s Corporations Act. The decision from Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench, released on Oct. 23, said that it was not the court’s place to intervene and the synagogue can determine its own membership rules.

A lawyer for the married couple told National Post they were disappointed by the outcome but they are reviewing it with counsel as they decide on future steps.

“Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult do not believe that their family membership was terminated because of a ‘threat’ but because of their political views regarding Israel’s actions in the war in Gaza,” their lawyer Murray Trachtenberg said.

Following the October 7 massacre, when 1,200 people were murdered by Hamas terrorists in Israel, Eviatar co-founded the Manitoba chapter of a group that was critical of Israel’s actions. The group is part of a larger organization of “Israelis and Palestinians opposed to the war in Gaza and Israeli military operations,” according to the courts’ description.

Eviatar also appeared on a CBC radio show in October 2024. She talked about the organization and said the point was to have “hard conversations.” She also said that the group did not use the word “genocide” to describe what’s happening in Gaza, “but it’s a strategic choice and it’s not because they don’t think that’s what’s happening.”

After that appearance, Eviatar said the synagogue’s rabbi called her to say she was no longer allowed to lead a specific service — a role she had maintained for 20 years. A month later, she said the synagogue accused her of “aligning herself with a movement which is mutually exclusive of and contrary to the interests of Jewish people and the state of Israel,” according to the court document.

The conflict between the couple and the synagogue worsened when Hoult was critical of measures being taken to improve security.

In March 2025, the synagogue implemented safety measures, after an assessment by Winnipeg police, that included locked and monitored entrances, a pre-registration requirement for Saturday morning services, and the use of security personnel.

In a letter to the synagogue’s president a few months later, Hoult wrote that “hysteria and paranoia” led to the synagogue “giving Hamas a victory by caving to fear.” He also said the measures were “psychologically stupid.”

The synagogue’s position is that the letter was threatening and “needed to be taken seriously, particularly as it came within weeks of Dr. Hoult’s frustrated attempt” to have the security measures removed. The membership was revoked due to this incident, according to the synagogue.

A lawyer representing Congregation Etz Chayim declined comment to National Post.

Justice Victor Toews wrote in his decision that he did not accept that Hoult’s words “were willfully or otherwise intentionally used to communicate a threat.”

However, Toews noted, in conclusion, that unless there is an underlying legal dispute — which there was not in this case — the law is “clear that religious groups are free to determine their own membership and rules.”

Join the Conversation Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

You must be logged in to join the discussion.