As readers of this weekly update know, GAJE will be seeking leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed our application to reassess the Adler decision by the Supreme Court in 1996 to be thrown out of court. Reassessing the Adler decision of 30 years ago is the first step in enabling GAJE to challenge Ontario’s discriminatory educational funding policy.

The Government of Ontario refuses even to have a discussion with GAJE about ending the unfair, unequal educational funding of Jewish and other minority children. And it is now apparent, that neither the Divisional Court nor the Court of Appeal is bothered by Ontario’s relentless, hard-nosed refusal to abolish the unequal treatment of non-Catholic minority school children. Alas.

If the Government of Ontario ever finds the political courage to talk about the appropriateness of its educational policies in the year 2026, most Education experts will advise them:

• that the policies are anachronistic;

• that the policies actually discourage the best educational results, and

• that funding independent schools – at least to some extent – is more financially efficient.

Last week, the Alberta-based Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy released a new study examining the financial impact of independent schools and home education programs.

The study was entitled More Choice, More Savings: How Educational Choice Saves Alberta Taxpayers Billions.

The authors of the study stated boldly-stated their conclusion: “Educational choice is saving Alberta taxpayers billions.”

The study analyzed per-student funding, enrolment trends, and capital implications across Alberta’s K–12 system. The evidence shows that independent and home education programs are not a burden on the public system—they are a fiscal benefit.

We reproduce some key points from the Foundation’s press release.

• Fully taxpayer-funded public, separate, and francophone schools cost taxpayers $11,225 per student. Independent schools cost $8,027, and home education costs $1,802.

• Each independent school student saves taxpayers 28 cents on the dollar compared to a fully- funded public school student. Each home-educated student saves 84 cents on the dollar.

• In 2024 alone, these savings totalled $306.4 million. Over the past five years, they add up to $1.35 billion.

• If independent and home-education students were absorbed into the public system, Alberta would require at least 54 additional public schools, at a capital cost exceeding $3 billion.

The authors added that the overwhelmingly middle-class families who choose these options do so for many reasons: supportive and safe environments, smaller class sizes and alignment with family values. Alberta’s education system is one of the most pluralistic in North America, offering 17 distinct approaches to schooling, 13 of which receive at least partial public funding. That diversity not only reflects market demand, it strengthens the system as a whole.

The study is available at:

More choice, more savings: How educational choice saves Alberta taxpayers billions

•••

GAJE shares this information because it offers relevant, up-to-date information regarding the funding of education in the year 2026 in Canada. In its broad framework, Alberta’s policy conforms with and confirms the funding practices of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec.

Ontario’s Minister of Education should be interested in this information. By at least partially funding independent schools, the province would:

• spend its tax-payer funds more wisely and more efficiently,

• improve province- wide educational outcomes,

• provide safer, more supportive learning environments for all children in the province,

• enable smaller class sizes in the public school system,

• foster education that more closely aligns with the true needs and values of the child’s family,

• provide education that more accurately reflects the cultural, denominational and special needs diversity of Ontario,

• strengthen the public school system, and

• abate, if not yet eliminate, the unequal, unfair, discriminatory treatment of non-Catholic, minority children.

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

February 27, 2026

Two weeks ago, the Ontario’s Court of Appeal (COA) upheld a ruling by the Divisional Court not to allow GAJE to proceed with our application for fairness in educational funding.

The COA had to decide whether GAJE had satisfied the test enabling the revisiting of a binding legal precedent. The Court articulated the test. It contains two parts: (i) A new legal issue is raised or new legal issues arise as a consequence of significant developments in the law; or (ii) There is a change in the circumstances or evidence that “fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate”. The test is disjunctive. The applicant need satisfy one, not both, of the two elements.

The COA, ruled that GAJE had failed to meet either of the two prongs of the test.

•••

In last week’s update, we commented upon the court’s finding regarding the second prong. The COA failed to see the post-“October 7” world for Jews and their children in Ontario, as “fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate” about fairness in educational funding. In effect, the COA found that there was antisemitism in 1996 and that the antisemitism facing Jews since “October 7” is simply more of the same. The court did not grasp that Jews in Ontario in 1996 did not feel the worry and the disquiet that so many feel today. It did not grasp that the hostility to Jewish children in public schools, worsens considerably an already back-breaking burden for Jewish families regarding the Jewish education of their children.

•••

This week, we comment on the court’s reasoning regarding the first prong. GAJE had to show that a new legal issue was raised or new legal issues arose as a consequence of significant developments in the law. We shall only identify the legal developments and legal issues we raised. Space does not permit us to delve into the layered detail of each.

GAJE pointed to three new developments in the law after 1996, the year that the Adler precedent was decided. Two were judicial; one was statutory.

• The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has articulated a doctrine by which Canadian law must conform with international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.

• The SCC has developed the principle of State Neutrality by which the state is required to act in a manner that is respectful of every person’s freedom of conscience and religion. The state must neither favour nor hinder any particular religious belief. The state must show respect for all postures towards religion.

• Less than a year after the Adler case was decided, Quebec and Canada agreed that Quebec would opt out of the “historic agreement” with Ontario in 1867 in which both provinces promised to protect minority denominational educational rights in their respective provinces. This new arrangement for Quebec was enshrined as S.93A of Canada’s Constitution Act.

The COA adopted the reasoning of the Divisional Court rejecting Judge Eugenia Papageorgiou’s original findings that these legal developments as well as the new circumstances since 1996 warranted a fuller examination by the courts on the correctness of the Adler reasons in 2026.

“Developments in the law related to ss. 2(a) [Freedom of Conscience and Religion] and 15(1) [Equality Rights] of the Charter were irrelevant because Adler (the 1996 SCC decision) holds that Charter analysis is inapplicable in light of the unique constitutional protection afforded to Roman Catholic separate schools in Ontario under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

“In terms of developments in international law (the presumption of conformity), the Divisional Court made two observations of note. First, Adler’s interpretation was rooted in Canadian history – in particular, the historical compromise made at Confederation – and did not leave room for the international instruments and other sources cited by the motion judge. Second, even if the presumption of conformity did constitute a development in the law, international principles cannot be used to invalidate Canadian constitutional provisions. If one part of Canada’s own Constitution cannot be used to invalidate another provision within the Constitution, there is no reasonable prospect that international sources could do so.”

“Finally, the Divisional Court held the addition of s. 93A (Enshrining Quebec’s leaving the 1867 agreement) had no reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test (for revisiting legal precedent) because it does not apply to Ontario and does not affect how s. 93 is to be interpreted in this province. 

•••

The test for revisiting a legal precedent requires, in part, the examination of new legal developments. The two SCC-developed presumption of conformity and doctrine of state neutrality arose after the Adler case was decided. Yet, the COA paid them no heed because they refused to depart from the legal reasoning that the historic agreement of 1867, as encapsulated in S. 93(1) of the Constitution, was legally impenetrable and could not be affected by post-1996 legal decisions.

The COA dismissed the legal or factual relevance of the fact Quebec abandoned the historical 1867 agreement with Ontario and Quebec shortly after the 1996 decision. The court reasoned that the S.93A constitutional amendment that enshrined Quebec’s departure from the 1867 compromise, had no legal bearing upon Ontario.

The ironies in the COA decision are many, ironic, and cruel.

• The purpose of the 1867 historical bargain between Ontario and Quebec was to ensure each province educationally protected their respective religious minorities. In 1997, Quebec found a more educationally modern way to protect its Protestant and other minorities. Ontario, on the other hand, relies upon the 1867 agreement to staunchly and unyieldingly maintain its unequal educational funding treatment of the minorities who have settled in the province since 1867.

• Of course, Ontario was not a party to the S.93A amendment. One might think, however, that the fact of the agreement’s abrogation by one of the original parties, would compel the court to consider whether the steadfast, unchanging application of the terms of the 1867 agreement by Ontario was still reasonable, let alone conscionable, in light of profound societal changes in the ensuing 159 years. Should the courts have no say in the refusal by Ontario to extend full Charter rights and freedoms to all the people in Ontario?

• GAJE has never sought to set aside or disable the operation of the funding rights under the S.93 historical agreement. Rather, GAJE has only ever sought to have the courts examine whether S.93 should continue to stymy the extension to non-Catholic denominational minorities, of the equality rights and fundamental freedoms in the Charter. There is no prohibition in S.93 preventing Ontario from funding, to some extent at least, non-Catholic denominational schools.

• The court ruled that S.93 is unassailable. Yet wasn’t the Bedford/Carter exercise explicitly created by the SCC to enable reconsideration of a decision’s continued unassailability? The SCC has long maintained that the Constitution is a “living tree”. It must be allowed to evolve to suit modern times and demands in accordance with the values and virtues that underpin it.

GAJE did not ask The COA to decide our application on the merits. We asked the court for the opportunity to have a full legal exploration on the correctness of the Adler decision today, 30 years after it was decided. Should the Adler ruling preventing equality and fundamental freedom for non-Catholic minorities in 1996 still stand as the law in 2026?

The COA would not grant GAJE this opportunity. Inequality and the denial of fundamental freedom still stand.

•••

GAJE has promised to continue the legal battle for fairness in educational funding until the very end. We have not reached the end. The next option is to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. We harbour no illusions about the chances of success. But nor do we harbour any sense of “quit”. We have an obligation to our forebears, our children and our grandchildren. We also have an obligation to try to make Ontario society Charter-observant for all Ontario children.  

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

February 20, 2026

The decision last week by Ontario’s Court of Appeal not to allow GAJE a hearing in court on the merits of our application for fairness in educational funding was devastating.

Despite the court’s ruling, we admire and respect the Canadian judiciary, whose members bring integrity, their best judgment and earnest labour to the process which, by its nature, pleases and disappoints in the same result. It is because of our high regard for the court that its decision was so deeply disheartening.

The court had to decide whether GAJE had satisfied the test for revisiting a binding – in this case, SCC – precedent. The Court articulated the test: (i) a new legal issue is raised or new legal issues arise as a consequence of significant developments in the law; or (ii) there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that “fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate”.

The test is disjunctive. The applicant need satisfy one, not both, of the two elements.

We will not parse the decision. Too many are the issues; too lacking is our ability to tackle the intricacies of the legal analysis, and too inadequate is this space in any event. However, this week and next we shall offer brief comment on the outcome.

•••

To try to persuade the court, in the words of the second prong of the legal test, that there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate, GAJE attempted to file fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit sworn by Prof. Robert Brym that attested to the unprecedented toxic atmosphere and increase in acts of antisemitism in Ontario public schools since October 7, 2023. Prof. Brym had been commissioned in April 2025 by Deborah Lyons, then Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism to report upon the nature and the extent of antisemitism in Ontario public schools.

In his affidavit, Prof. Brym concluded:

“In my view, the above data demonstrate unequivocally that antisemitism is widespread in Ontario’s K-12 public and Catholic schools, especially English public schools; the data demonstrate that school authorities have failed to address the problem in any meaningful way; and the data demonstrate that barriers of access and cost prevent many Jewish students from enrolling in Jewish schools, where, protected from antisemitism, they would enjoy the safe and supportive environment that all schoolchildren are promised and deserve.

“[I]t is my view that the antisemitism faced by children in public schools has worsened substantially since 2000, with the most dramatic change being the period post-October 7, 2023. Based on the data, I characterize the situation as a crisis of antisemitism in which Jewish schoolchildren are being put at significant emotional and physical risk when attending non-Jewish publicly funded schools.” (Our emphasis).

The Court, however, concluded that “[T]he proposed evidence does not have a reasonable prospect of fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate in Adler.” (The 1996 SCC decision that GAJE is trying to have re-assessed in light of the developments of the past 30 years.)

The Court was of the view that “if believed, the proposed evidence could not have affected the result in the lower court….”

“The primary factual circumstance in Adler was the threat to the long-term survival of the Jewish community. While the proposed evidence [Prof. Brym’s affidavit] offers further insight into the challenges to the long-term survival of the Jewish community, that additional insight does not amount to a change in circumstance that has a reasonable prospect of “fundamentally shift[ing] the parameters of the debate”

“Therefore, if admitted, the proposed evidence could not be expected to have affected the result below. Accordingly, the proposed evidence does not satisfy the fourth requirement for the admission.” (To accept fresh evidence on an appeal, the document must satisfy a four-pronged test.)

“I understand the Divisional Court to simply be saying that the evidence adduced on the Application (by GAJE) was similar in nature to that which was before the Supreme Court in Adler and, therefore, did not have a reasonable prospect of fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate.

The Court of Appeal ascribed no legal significance to the evidence by Prof. Brym. In the result, it adopted the Divisional Court’s characterization that the evidence adduced on the Application (by GAJE) was similar in nature to that which was before the court in Adler. (Our emphasis)

The Court failed to grasp the gravitas of what Prof. Brym termed “a crisis of antisemitism” for Jewish children in public schools. Thus, the Court failed to see the post-October 7 world for Jews and their children in Ontario, as “fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate” about fairness in educational funding. The Court, in effect, said that there was antisemitism in 1996. Indeed, there has always been antisemitism. The antisemitism facing Jews today is simply more of the same. At any level, the court simply does not “get it”. It did not grasp that the Jews of Ontario did not feel in 1996, the worry and the disquiet that so many feel today. The Court did not grasp that the hostility to Jewish children in public schools, worsens considerably an already back-breaking burden for Jewish families regarding the Jewish education of their children.

•••

GAJE has promised to continue the legal battle for fairness in educational funding until the very end. We have not reached the end. The next option is to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. We harbour no illusions about the chances of success. But nor do we harbour any sense of “quit”. As we wrote last week in this space, we are compelled forward out of an obligation to our forebears, our children and our grandchildren. In truth, we are also compelled out of an obligation to preserving the values and virtues of Ontario society for which we once held the highest hope.  

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

February 13, 2026

CITATION: Ontario (Education) v. Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education
Inc., 2026 ONCA 70
DATE: 20260204
DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0298
Gillese, Pepall and Roberts JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the
Minister of Education and the Minister of Health
Respondent/Moving Party/Appellant
(Respondent)
and
Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education Inc., Stephen
Mitchell, Mordechai Ben-Dat, Zac Kaye, Ron Gersh, Ashleigh
Segal-Eskin, Ronnen Lederman, Miri Schneiderman, Karen
Goldenberg, Howard Price, and Sara Dobner
Applicants/Responding Parties/Respondents
(Appellants)
Jillian Siskind, Lawrence Greenspon and Victoria Pileggi, for the appellants
Josh Hunter and Maia Stevenson, for the respondent
Heard: November 21, 2025
On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Nancy L. Backhouse,
Richard A. Lococo and Shaun O’Brien) dated September 10, 2024, with reasons
reported at 2024 ONSC 4905, setting aside the order of Justice Eugenia
Papageorgiou of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 21, 2023, with
reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 3722.
Page: 2
Gillese J.A.:
I. OVERVIEW
[1] The appellants brought an application seeking public funding for Jewish day
schools from the Ontario government.
1 Ontario moved to strike the application on
the basis it was an attempt to relitigate the Supreme Court of Canada decision in
Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R 609 (the “Motion”).
[2] The appellants responded to the Motion by arguing there was a reasonable
prospect the court would revisit Adler, based on the test set out in Canada
(Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, and Carter v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331 (the “Bedford/Carter
test”). Under the Bedford/Carter test, a trial judge can revisit binding precedent if:
(i) a new legal issue is raised or new legal issues arise as a consequence of
significant developments in the law; or (ii) there is a change in the circumstances
or evidence that “fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate”: Bedford, at
para. 42.
[3] The motion judge found the appellants had a reasonable prospect of
satisfying the Bedford/Carter test and dismissed the Motion.
1 They also commenced their application against the Attorney General of Canada. The motion judge struck
the application and the appellants did not appeal that decision.
Page: 3
[4] Ontario successfully appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the
application.
[5] In the appeal now before this court, the appellants challenge the Divisional
Court decision and ask that their application be permitted to proceed.
[6] I would dismiss the appeal. Adler directly determines the issues raised on
the application and, for the reasons of the Divisional Court, I see no reasonable
prospect that, pursuant to the Bedford/Carter test, Adler can be revisited by the
lower court.
II. BACKGROUND
[7] The individual appellants are parents and grandparents of children who
attend or attended Jewish day schools in Ontario; the appellant Grassroots for
Affordable Jewish Education Inc. is a not-for-profit organization that advocates on
their behalf (together, the “Appellants”).
[8] The Appellants brought an application (the “Application”) in which they
sought full funding for Jewish day schools by His Majesty the King in Right of
Ontario as represented by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health
(“Ontario”). They contend that Ontario’s failure to fully fund Jewish day schools in
Ontario, as it does for Roman Catholic separate schools, breaches their right to
freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Page: 4
and their right to equality under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Sections 2(a) and 15(1) of
the Charter are set out in Schedule A to these reasons.
[9] Ontario brought the Motion to strike the Application pursuant to r. 21.01(1)(b)
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. It maintained that the
issues raised in the Application had been definitively decided in Adler. Adler was
brought by parents who sent their children to private religious schools, including
Jewish day schools. The parents sought a declaration that non-funding of Jewish
day schools in Ontario violated ss. 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter. The Supreme
Court held the s. 2(a) claim failed because s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
is a comprehensive code of denominational school rights. It held the s. 15(1) claim
failed because the funding of Roman Catholic separate schools and public schools
is within the contemplation of the terms of s. 93 and, therefore, is immune from
Charter scrutiny. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, is set out in Schedule A
to these reasons.
[10] In their Application, the Appellants put forward evidence of two types of facts
and circumstances they contended were new. First, they submitted evidence of
the threat to the long-term survival of the Jewish community. This evidence
emphasized the importance of Jewish day school education to Jewish religious
practice and cultural identity. Second, the Appellants relied on what the motion
judge described as “a growing recognition of the benefits of supporting diversity”.
Page: 5
[11] The motion judge acknowledged that this evidence, on its own, did not
satisfy the Bedford/Carter test. However, she stated, when considered together
with the Appellants’ other arguments, the evidence had “some relevance” to
whether that test had been met. The Appellants’ other arguments were based on:
developments in the law related to the Charter; the addition of s. 93A to the
Constitution Act, 1867; and, developments in international law. The motion judge
concluded that when the evidence of social, political, and legislative changes was
considered together, the Appellants had a reasonable prospect of satisfying the
Bedford/Carter test. Accordingly, she dismissed the Motion and allowed the
Application to proceed.
[12] In allowing Ontario’s appeal, the Divisional Court noted there was “no doubt”
Adler directly determined the issues raised in the Application; rather, the dispute
between the parties was whether Adler could be revisited pursuant to the
Bedford/Carter test. The Divisional Court concluded the motion judge erred in
finding the Application had a reasonable prospect of satisfying that test for the
following reasons.
[13] First, given that the motion judge acknowledged that the facts and
circumstances in the Application were not new and found they did not on their own
satisfy the Bedford/Carter test, she erred in treating that evidence as relevant when
deciding whether the Application met the Bedford/Carter test. The Divisional Court
found the evidence presented on the Application “not only failed to fundamentally
Page: 6
shift the parameters of the debate but replicated the circumstances in Adler”. In so
finding, it noted that in Adler, the lower courts had accepted the Appellants’
evidence that education of their children in accordance with their religious practices
and beliefs was essential to their membership in the religious community and the
survival of that community. The importance of diversity was also “squarely at play”
in Adler. Consequently, the small shifts in various facts and circumstances on the
Application were insufficient to “profoundly alter” the framework in Adler.
Accordingly, it was an error on the part of the motion judge to find that evidence
was relevant to a determination of whether there was a reasonable prospect the
Application would satisfy the Bedford/Carter test.
[14] Second, the Divisional Court found that none of the evidence of alleged
developments in the law on which the Application rested had any reasonable
prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test because they were irrelevant to the
Adler analysis.
[15] The alleged developments in law were found to be irrelevant for a number
of reasons, a key one of which is that the motion judge wrongly relied on dissenting
opinions in Adler to question the force of the majority analysis. Developments in
the law related to ss. 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter were irrelevant because Adler
holds that Charter analysis is inapplicable in light of the unique constitutional
protection afforded to Roman Catholic separate schools in Ontario under s. 93(1)
of the Constitution Act, 1867. In terms of developments in international law, the
Page: 7
Divisional Court made two observations of note. First, Adler’s interpretation was
rooted in Canadian history – in particular, the historical compromise made at
Confederation – and did not leave room for the international instruments and other
sources cited by the motion judge. Second, even if the presumption of conformity
did constitute a development in the law, international principles cannot be used to
invalidate Canadian constitutional provisions. If one part of Canada’s own
Constitution cannot be used to invalidate another provision within the Constitution,
there is no reasonable prospect that international sources could do so.
[16] Finally, the Divisional Court held the addition of s. 93A had no reasonable
prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test because it does not apply to Ontario
and does not affect how s. 93 is to be interpreted in this province. The amendment
was authorized under the amending formula in s. 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982,
by Quebec and Canada and, therefore, affects only residents of Quebec. Thus,
the motion judge erred in finding that s. 93A gave rise to a reasonable prospect
that the Application could meet the Bedford/Carter test.
III. THE ISSUES
[17] The Appellants ask that the following three questions be decided on this
appeal. Did the Divisional Court err:

1. in applying the wrong test for determining a motion to strike under r. 21;
   Page: 8
2. in law, in concluding that the Bedford/Carter test could not be met by
   considering the cumulative effect of a number of changes in facts and
   law; and
3. in finding that s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, was a complete bar to
   the Application’s success, despite the changes brought by s. 93A,
   changes in international law, and the evolution of Charter rights since
   1996?
   IV. THE FRESH EVIDENCE MOTION
   [18] The Appellants moved to introduce fresh evidence on this appeal. The
   proposed evidence consists of a report published in July 2025 (the “Report”) and
   a corresponding affidavit of its author (the “Affidavit”). The Report and Affidavit
   address the nature and extent of antisemitism in Ontario’s schools from
   kindergarten to grade 12. Among other things, the Report shows widespread
   antisemitism in that population in both public and Catholic schools. Further, the
   Affidavit states that the situation facing Jewish schoolchildren attending Ontario
   publicly-funded schools has “worsened substantially since 2000, with the most
   dramatic change being the period post-October 7, 2023”.
   [19] The Appellants submit the proposed evidence should be admitted because
   the Divisional Court decision “was predicated on its conclusion that the
   circumstances raised in the Application ‘replicated’ those circumstances that
   Page: 9
   existed in Adler”. They maintain the proposed evidence establishes that finding is
   “demonstrably wrong”.
   A. The Principles Governing the Admission of Additional Evidence on
   Appeal
   [20] The requirements governing the admission of additional evidence on appeal
   were revisited in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 517. As
   stated at para. 29 of Barendregt, appellate courts have the discretion to admit
   additional evidence to supplement the record on appeal when the proposed
   evidence:
   (i) could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been obtained for
   the lower court;
   (ii) is relevant, in that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive
   issue;
   (iii) is credible, in the sense it is reasonably capable of belief; and
   (iv) is such that, if believed, could have affected the result in the lower
   court.
   [21] The admission of additional evidence on appeal “will be rare” because, as
   the case proceeds up the appellate ladder, the matters in issue between the parties
   should narrow, rather than expand: Barendregt, at para. 31. To treat additional
   evidence otherwise would blur the distinction between the roles of trial and
   Page: 10
   appellate courts, with trial courts being responsible for making factual findings and
   appellate courts being responsible for reviewing trial decisions for errors:
   Barendregt, at para. 40.
   [22] Barendregt also addresses the differences between “new” evidence on
   appeal, as opposed to “fresh” evidence. Evidence is “new” if it pertains to facts that
   occurred after trial; evidence is “fresh” when it occurred before trial but, for some
   reason, could not be put before the lower court: Barendregt, at para. 48. However,
   all four requirements set out above apply to additional evidence tendered on
   appeal, regardless of whether it is fresh or new: Barendregt, at paras. 34, 55.
   B. Analysis
   [23] I have concluded that the proposed evidence does not meet the fourth
   requirement and, accordingly, I would not admit it. Before giving my reasons for so
   concluding, I will briefly address the first three requirements.
   i. The first requirement
   [24] The first requirement is that the proposed evidence could not, with the
   exercise of due diligence, have been obtained for the lower court. In this appeal,
   neither the Report nor the Affidavit were in existence at the time of the proceedings
   below. Nonetheless, as Barendregt explains, the due diligence requirement is
   “sufficiently flexible” to adapt to concerns raised by evidence arising after trial: at
   para. 58. However, to find the first requirement satisfied simply because the
   Page: 11
   evidence was not in existence at the time of the lower court proceeding would do
   away with the due diligence requirement. Instead, the first requirement requires
   the court to consider the conduct of the litigant seeking to adduce the proposed
   evidence. The court must determine whether that party could – with due diligence
   – have acted in a way that would have rendered the evidence available for trial:
   Barendregt, at paras. 56-61.
   [25] In this case, when considering the first requirement, it is useful to consider
   whether the proposed evidence is new or fresh. The Report is new, in my view, for
   two reasons. First, it was published in 2025, after the Motion and appeal to the
   Divisional Court were decided. Second, it was based on a study that was
   conducted from late January to early April 2025 and covered incidents taking place
   specifically between October 2023 and January 2025. Neither the Report nor the
   information it contains could have been available earlier in this proceeding with the
   exercise of due diligence. Therefore, in my view, the due diligence requirement is
   met with respect to the Report.
   [26] Determining whether the due diligence requirement is met in respect of the
   Affidavit is not as straightforward. Consider, for example, the affiant’s opinion that
   “antisemitism faced by children in public schools has worsened substantially since
   2000, with the most dramatic change being the period post-October 7, 2023”.
   Given the lengthy period between 2000 and the bringing of the Application, the
   affiant’s reference to worsening circumstances since 2000 suggests that evidence
   Page: 12
   supporting that opinion could, with due diligence, have been obtained and put
   before the motion judge. This consideration weighs against the admission of at
   least some of the additional evidence. However, the affiant’s reference – in the
   same sentence – to the “most dramatic change” having arisen in the period
   between October 2023 and January 2025, shifts the calculus in favour of admitting
   the proposed evidence, including the Affidavit, because again that information
   could not have, with due diligence, been put before the court in the earlier
   proceedings.
   [27] Thus, the question becomes, how is the court to decide whether to admit
   proposed additional evidence that appears to consist of both fresh and new
   evidence? Even accepting that the due diligence requirement is met, such a
   determination is unnecessary because of my conclusion that the Appellants’
   motion to adduce fresh evidence is best decided on the fourth requirement. I leave
   a deeper exploration of how to treat evidence that consists of both fresh and new
   for a case in which that determination is critical.
   ii. The second requirement
   [28] To satisfy the second requirement, the proposed evidence must be relevant,
   in that it “bears upon” a decisive or potentially decisive issue. One of the decisive
   issues in this appeal is whether the evidence on the Application has a reasonable
   prospect of satisfying the second prong of the Bedford/Carter test. To do so, that
   evidence must establish a change in circumstances that fundamentally shifts the
   Page: 13
   parameters of the debate in Adler. The proposed evidence does bear on whether
   there has been a change in circumstances from those in Adler. However, as I
   explain in my analysis of the fourth requirement, the proposed evidence does not
   have a reasonable prospect of fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate
   in Adler.
   iii. The third requirement
   [29] To satisfy the third requirement, the proposed evidence must be “credible”,
   in the sense it is reasonably capable of belief. In my view, it is unquestionable that
   the proposed evidence is credible. The author of the Report is a distinguished
   expert on antisemitism in Canada. Furthermore, the commissioned study was
   conducted under the purview of the Government of Canada (Department of
   Canadian Heritage, Ministry of Canadian Identity and Culture).
   iv. The fourth requirement
   [30] The fourth requirement for admission of additional evidence is that, if
   believed, the proposed evidence could have affected the result in the lower court.
   In my view, the proposed evidence does not satisfy this requirement.
   [31] The primary factual circumstance in Adler was the threat to the long-term
   survival of the Jewish community. While the proposed evidence offers further
   insight into the challenges to the long-term survival of the Jewish community, that
   additional insight does not amount to a change in circumstance that has a
   Page: 14
   reasonable prospect of “fundamentally shift[ing] the parameters of the debate”.
   Therefore, if admitted, the proposed evidence could not be expected to have
   affected the result below. Accordingly, the proposed evidence does not satisfy the
   fourth requirement for the admission of additional evidence.
   [32] For essentially the same reason, I do not accept the Appellants’ assertion
   that the Divisional Court decision is predicated on it having concluded that the
   circumstances raised in the Application “replicated” those in Adler. In making that
   statement, I understand the Divisional Court to simply be saying that the evidence
   adduced on the Application was similar in nature to that which was before the
   Supreme Court in Adler and, therefore, did not have a reasonable prospect of
   fundamentally shifting the parameters of the debate.
   Issue 1 No error in the application of the rule 21.01(1)(b) test
   [33] The Appellants submit the Divisional Court failed to properly apply the test
   for a motion to strike under r. 21.01(1)(b). They contend that instead of asking
   whether there was a reasonable prospect the Bedford/Carter test would be met on
   a full evidentiary record, the Divisional Court engaged in a substantive analysis of
   the arguments and asked whether the Application would succeed.
   [34] I do not accept this submission.
   [35] The Divisional Court expressly recognized that Ontario brought the Motion
   to strike under r. 21.01(1)(b) on the basis the Application had no reasonable
   Page: 15
   prospect of success. It also expressly recognized that, on the Motion, the court
   had to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect the Appellants could
   satisfy the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent. And, the Divisional
   Court correctly articulated the Bedford/Carter test.
   [36] There is nothing in the Divisional Court reasons to indicate that, as the
   Appellants allege, the court then determined whether the Appellants would
   succeed, rather than whether the evidence raised a reasonable prospect it would
   satisfy that test. That the Divisional Court properly applied the test is evident from
   para. 15 of its reasons, where it instructs itself as follows:
   On a motion to strike, it is not the court’s task to finally
   conclude whether the record discloses such a
   fundamental shift or profound alteration, but the court
   must at a minimum identify where there is a reasonable
   prospect it will be found in the record.
   [37] On a full and fair reading of its reasons, that is precisely what the Divisional
   Court did. Accordingly, in my view, this ground of appeal fails.
   Issue 2 No reasonable prospect the Bedford/Carter test could be met
   [38] The Appellants submit that the Divisional Court erred when it concluded
   there was no reasonable prospect that the Application could satisfy the
   Bedford/Carter test. They argue that the Application raises several new legal
   issues that were not raised in Adler and, thus, the court is not bound by Adler in
   relation to those issues. They also contend that the reasons of the Divisional Court
   Page: 16
   indicate that a single solitary issue must shift the parameters of the debate, rather
   than a consideration of the cumulative effect of numerous changes in facts and
   law.
   [39] I do not accept this submission. The evidence adduced on the Application
   was similar in nature to that which was before the court in Adler. I echo the
   Divisional Court’s reliance on R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC 15, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 342,
   at para. 26, which highlights the strictness of the Bedford/Carter test. The doctrine
   that lower courts must follow the decisions of higher courts is fundamental to our
   legal system and to guaranteeing certainty in the law. Thus, the new evidence
   exception to vertical stare decisis is limited. That exception has been found to be
   engaged “where the underlying social context that framed the original legal debate
   is profoundly altered”: Comeau, at para. 31.
   [40] For the reasons of the Divisional Court, I also reject the submission that the
   Application raised new legal issues that have a reasonable prospect of satisfying
   the first prong of the Bedford/Carter test.
   [41] Finally, I see nothing in the argument that the Divisional Court found that a
   solitary issue was needed to shift the parameters of the debate. It dealt with the
   Appellants’ submissions, both separately and cumulatively, before finding that
   none posed a reasonable prospect of satisfying the Bedford/Carter test.
   Page: 17
   Issue 3 No error in the treatment of s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867
   [42] I see no error in the Divisional Court’s analysis of s. 93 of the Constitution
   Act, 1867, as summarized above.
   V. DISPOSITION
   [43] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. In accordance with the
   parties’ agreement, I would make no order as to costs of the fresh evidence motion
   or the appeal.
   Released: February 4, 2026

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

February 6, 2026

King Charles was absolutely correct when he described his late friend, guide and counsellor, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, as “unmistakably one in the tradition of the greatest teachers among the Jewish people.”

Rabbi Sacks’ insights have often accompanied or, more likely, been the centrepiece of these weekly GAJE missives over the past ten plus years. The vast body of his penetrating and inspiring writings, speeches, broadcasts, discourses and conversations are a source of unending light.

Rabbi Sacks’ commentary on last week’s Torah portion, Bo, first written 19 years ago, and posted anew by The Rabbi Sacks Legacy last week, provides a profoundly apposite insight into the essential role of education in Jewish life and throughout Jewish history. 

Rabbi Sacks entitled the commentary, Freedom’s Defence. He reflects upon the nature of true, authentic, meaningful human freedom and liberty. In doing so, Rabbi Sacks brilliantly places education as freedom’s ultimate defender.

Rabbi Sacks’ insights touch the very heart of GAJE’s mission. GAJE, therefore, provides excerpts from the rabbi’s commentary on the Torah portion, Bo. (Because the passages are so relevant and so pointedly written, we provide more than we might usually. All indications of emphasis are from GAJE.)

•••

“It was the moment for which they had been waiting for more than two hundred years. The Israelites, slaves in Egypt, were about to go free…. And now the time had arrived. The Israelites were on the brink of their release. Moses, their leader, gathered them together and prepared to address them. What would he speak about at this fateful juncture, the birth of a people? 

“[H]e spoke about children, and the distant future, and the duty to pass on memory to generations yet unborn….

“About to gain their freedom, the Israelites were told that they had to become a nation of educators. That is what made Moses not just a great leader, but a unique one. What the Torah is teaching is that freedom is won…in the human imagination and will. To defend a country, you need an army. But to defend a free society, you need schools. You need families and an educational system in which ideals are passed on from one generation to the next, and never lost, or despaired of, or obscured. So, Jews became the people whose passion was education, whose citadels were schools and whose heroes were teachers.

“The result was that by the time the Second Temple was destroyed, Jews had constructed the world’s first system of universal compulsory education, paid for by public funds…

“By contrast, England did not institute universal compulsory education until 1870. The seriousness the Sages attached to education can be measured by the following….

“If a city has made no provision for the education of the young, its inhabitants are placed under a ban, until teachers have been engaged. If they persistently neglect this duty, the city is excommunicated, for the world only survives by the merit of the breath of schoolchildren.

Maimonides, Hilchot Talmud Torah 2:1

“No other faith has attached a higher value to study. None has given it a higher position in the scale of communal priorities.

“What, thanks to Torah, Jews never forgot is that freedom is a never-ending effort of education in which parents, teachers, homes, and schools are all partners in the dialogue between the generations.

“Learning – Talmud Torah – is the very foundation of Judaism, the guardian of our heritage and hope. That is why, when tradition conferred on Moses the greatest honour, it did not call him ‘our hero’, ‘our prophet’ or ‘our king’. It called him, simply, Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses our teacher. For it is in the arena of education that the battle for the good society is lost or won.”

•••

Rabbi Sacks provided the perspective that places Jewish education at the very heart of who we are, who we have always been and who we will – must – always be.

GAJE’s mission is to help try to ensure Jewish education is affordably available to Jewish families in perpetuity.

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

January 30, 2026

Israel’s former Ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, and currently the head of the international law programat the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, aptly expressed the frustration and anger of most Jews when he recently wrote: “On a daily basis, we are witnessing a mass-phenomenon of deliberately one-sided accusations being leveled solely against Israel, alleging human rights violations against Palestinians. Slanted social media platforms, once-reputable international media outlets, politically-biased UN bodies and human rights committees, and clearly ignorant show-biz celebrities all unthinkingly accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, cruelty and disproportionate military actions.”

The frustration and anger have boiled over in a cauldron of seething emotion because we know – and it has been well documented – that the onslaught of anti-Israel invective was planned before October 7 and erupted full bore onto the streets of the Western World on October 8 (2023) before any IDF soldiers had crossed into Gaza to hunt down the murderers and the slaughterers. We also know that the anti-Israel campaign of hatred has been funded and fiendishly orchestrated by, among others, Qatar, Iran, and Turkey.

Coping with our emotions and our fears these past 27 plus months has been the chief preoccupation of Jewish individuals, their families and organizations in every Jewish community around the world. Shlomi Ravid, the founding director of the Center for Jewish Peoplehood Education and the editor of The Peoplehood Papers, offers his own prescription for coping with and even surmounting these difficult days.

Ravid’s path forward “begins with reframing Jewish Peoplehood.” He defines Jewish peoplehood as resting on two interconnected tiers: the constitutive and the operational.

The constitutive tier gives rise to the sense of Jewish collectivity. It is based upon two covenants:

a. the covenant of fate, the idea that all Jews are responsible for one another; and

b. the covenant of destiny, the idea that the Jewish people share a collective mission.

These covenants define what Jewish Peoplehood is and what makes it unique among collective identities.

The operational tier gives rise to concrete communal structures that translate into how to achieve a sense of peoplehood. These include:

• The communal–civilizational enterprise that sustains Jewish life and ensures its future.

• Zionism as the framework for Jewish national expression.

• Pluralism as the method for turning core values into practical and political guidelines.

• Tikkun Olam as the expression of the Jewish commitment to the broader world.

• Jewish education as a collective priority.

Ravid suggests that the operational tier includes other principles as well. But the above-mentioned ones are the core. He wishes to achieve a new and powerful unity within the Jewish people “where most Jews can find common ground.” But first, Ravid reminds us, that there must be “clarity about who we are and what we stand for”.

It is in this regard that we point out Ravid included Jewish education as one of his pre-eminent peoplehood-building principles. We share his analysis on this point. This truth vital. By now, we hope it is also evident.

Ravid’s article can be read at:

How the language of Jewish Peoplehood can move us forward from the current crisis

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Am Yisrael Chai

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

January 23, 2026

In the summer of 2005, two remarkable individuals, Elizabeth and Tony Comper, founded Fighting Antisemitism Together. The organization was known by its acronym FAST.

The Compers were outraged by a series of antisemitic incidents in Toronto and Montreal. Their shock reached its peak with the firebombing, in April 2004, of the library at the United Talmud Torah Jewish Day School in Montreal. And so, they took action.

Some short months later, they founded FAST. But there was a defining feature to the organization that bespoke its abiding insight into the fight against antisemitism and indeed, against all societal hatreds and intolerance. Tony Comper, at that time the president and chief executive officer of BMO Financial Group, explained that feature in an address to the Empire Club in the summer of 2005.

The following is an excerpt from the report in The Canadian Jewish News of the event.

“I am here,” Comper told the hundreds assembled at the Empire Club, “because my wife, Elizabeth, and I believe that in the end, this is a crisis [the rise of anti-Semitism] that must be resolved by non-Jews. That is why we founded FAST… as one way of crying: ‘Enough!’ And why we recruited an all-star cast of non-Jewish Canadian business leaders… to the cause.”

Some of the founding members whom the Compers recruited to FAST were Courtney Pratt, president and chief executive officer of Stelco Inc., Michael J. Sabia, president and chief executive officer of Bell Canada Enterprises and Dominic D’Allesandro, president and chief executive officer of Manulife Financial.

“Comper spoke movingly of his and his wife’s resolve in their campaign against anti-Semitism.

He concluded his remarks by invoking the famous articulation by the late scholar, philosopher Emil Fackenheim, of a 614th commandment, that Jews are forbidden to give Hitler a posthumous victory by shying away from or

“I am here today,” Comper told the hushed and utterly attentive audience, “because I believe that this should not be a lonely battle – as it has so often been, for so many, for so long. And because I believe that this 614th commandment is something we all should be living by.”

FAST’s first educational project, developed in close partnership with the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region, was a curriculum-based learning program called Choose Your Voice, for use initially in grades 6, 7 and 8 of Ontario schools. A decade later, Choose Your Voice had been used by over two million students in more than 19,000 schools in every province and territory in Canada. FAST won the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Award of Excellence 2010. Indeed, Tony and Elizabeth Comper received numerous honours and awards from educational and human rights organization in Canada, and in Israel, in recognition of their initiative, courage and exemplary goodness.

In his ground-breaking remarks to the Empire Club in June 2005, Comper explained that FAST was no starry-eyed project divorced from the hard realities of the persistent hatred he and Elizabeth were determined to fight. “We realize that this initiative – and for that matter, any others that FAST may undertake – is unlikely to touch the hearts and minds of the real hard-core crowd, the ones who most likely learned their hatred at the parental knee,” Comper said.

 “But it could serve to further marginalize them, which sometimes is the best you can do when dealing with bullies and bigots… First, by stripping them of their potential power base, the people who really don’t know any better; and who, for whatever reasons, haven’t sought out the truth for themselves.

“Second, by going one step further and helping to encourage active opposition to the Jew-haters and racists and assorted other bigots and bullies the moment they start telling their despicable lies or making their ugly, pathetic ‘jokes.’ We believe if the truth can make us free, it should also make us bold.”

 Alas, on June 22, 2014, Elizabeth passed away. Teaching was her calling. Profound compassion and abiding virtue were deeply embedded in her nature. She understood in her bones and was known to say that “the best way of securing the future was by teaching young people today.”

In 2021, FAST merged with the Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (CISA), a scholarly organization that publishes the academic journal Antisemitism Studies.

•••

Writing in Policy Magazine: Canadian Politics and Public Policy, in July 2024,Hon. Kevin Lynch, former Clerk of the Privy Council and vice chair of BMO Financial Group, and Paul Deegan, CEO of Deegan Public Strategies and formerly public affairs executive at BMO and CN, reiterated the Compers’ plea that all of society, not just the Jews, must become engaged in the fight against antisemitism.

In an article entitled, It’s Time for Corporate Canada to Take Action on Antisemitism, they wrote: “….coalitions against antisemitism, with leadership from non-Jewish pillars of the business community, are needed even more today.

“…Canada needs a new forum for Jews and non-Jews to come together to combat this ancient hatred. This is an issue for non-Jews to address, as Comper wisely noted some twenty years ago, and business leadership can be crucial to progress. With the scourge of antisemitism on the rise, it’s time for today’s generation of CEOs to step up and show real leadership and allyship – not just in their own workplaces, but in the broader community – to ensure that the Jewish community feels not just believed, but supported.”

We note, sadly – to emphasize the urgency of the pleas by the late Elizabeth Comper, Tony Comper – and then reinforced 20 years later, i.e., today – by Kevin Lynch and Paul Deegan – that when she resigned her post earlier this year as Canada’s antisemitism envoy, Deborah Lyons told The CJN that over time, she grew “despondent and despairing” over how few Canadians stood up against anti-Jewish hatred. 

It is understood and accepted – or should be – by all sentient, law-abiding people that antisemitism threatens cherished democratic norms and civil society as well as Jews. This is the key lesson that the Compers, their corporate and business colleagues in FAST, Lynch and Deegan attempted to impress upon us all.

Their clarion voices should have been joined, unceasingly, by those of our government leaders of all levels. But we do not hear them. Nor have we heard them since October 7, 2023, except, if at all, as platitudes. Shame.

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Am Yisrael Chai

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

January 16, 2026

Gary Rosenblatt, the former publisher and editor-in-chief of The Jewish Week of New York (and other leading Jewish weeklies in the U.S. prior accepting his duties in New York) was the very best of the editors and newsroom leaders of the Jewish media during the heyday of print in North America.

Rosenblatt has retired from the newsroom and from the executive offices of The Jewish Week. But he has not put his pen down. He authors a regular column called Between the Lines that is posted on Substack.

His most recent column, entitled Two Heroes for our Time, was a tribute to Rachel Goldberg-Polin and her husband, Jon Polin. As readers know, their son, Hersh, lost an arm trying to save lives at the Nova Festival on October 7, 2023; was kidnapped into Gaza by Hamas; brutalized and tortured by his captors; then murdered by them along with five other hostages in a tunnel dungeon on August 30, 2024.

Rosenblatt wrote of Rachel and Jon that they display a level of faith, courage and resilience that still inspires millions. How very true. We marvel at their remarkable strength, goodness and purpose of character.

It is also true that Rosenblatt’s tribute to them is itself inspiring and worthy of reading. It can be found at: (https://garyrosenblatt.substack.com/p/two-heroes-for-our-time?img=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F34ad7e5c-4c84-4a93-b4f2-5104518c49f8_640x460.jpeg&open=false).

The following is an excerpt from Rosenblatt’s column. It is heartbreaking and enraging.

“We are living in a season of trauma that began in Israel on October 7 that has not gone away. On the contrary, as the war went on and Israel became an international pariah, expressions of antisemitism have increased around the world, from university campuses in the U.S., to violent attacks against Jews in Europe to the murder of innocent men, women and children celebrating Chanukah on a lovely beach in Australia.

“One of the great frustrations for supporters of Israel is trying to change the minds of Hamas supporters in this country who embrace liberal values even as they defend a terrorist group dedicated to killing Jews and destroying the Jewish state. The most disheartening example I know of comes from Jon Polin, husband of Rachel Goldberg-Polin and father of Hersh, a”h, probably the most well-known of the hostages abducted to Gaza on October 7.

“Jon shared the story with journalist Abigail Pogrebin, who moderated a poignant conversation with Rachel and Jon at the recent JOFA (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) conference in New York. He told the large, spellbound audience that during a rare few days of solitude last summer, he and Rachel visited a close friend in a small town in Oregon. One morning they went to a local coffee shop and noticed that the barista was wearing a “from the river to sea” button. Rachel cautioned Jon not to bother getting into a conversation with the young man. Jon didn’t, but their host did engage the barista, leading to an argument.

“After a few moments, Rachel walked over, put her hand out to the barista, asked him his name – Jake – and showed him a picture on her phone of Hersh. She explained, as she held Jake’s hand, that Hersh was her 23-year-old son, an advocate for peace and co-existence, who was one of six Israelis murdered by Hamas in a tunnel after being starved and tortured for almost 10 months.

“Jake’s reaction was immediate. “Well, you guys are committing genocide,” he said angrily.

“So much for compassion.”

•••

We bring readers’ attention to Rosenblatt’s column not because of its tender eloquence regarding Rachel and Jon. Rather, we do because the column indirectly proves the urgency of the need to teach our children the truth of Israel’s history. It is disheartening that so many people, shamefully, without any knowledge of the past or even an interest in knowing the past, so willingly spread lies about Israel, Jews and Judaism.

The antidote to the vilification wrought by ignorance and malign intent is the dissemination and constant restatement of truth.

Teaching this truth to our children means enabling their access to Jewish education.

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Am Yisrael Chai

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

January 9, 2026

In one of the key climactic scenes toward the end of The Sound of Music currently playing in Toronto, before the von Trapp family singers emerge onto the imagined stage of the Kaltzberg Concert Hall, five floor to ceiling curtain panels of crimson red bunting drop with sudden intrusive force as the backdrop to the upcoming scene. At the centre of each of the panels is a white circle in which the thick black arms of the crooked swastika reach to the edge of the circle’s circumference.

Even as theatre, the full, frontal, in-one’s-face view of the five large swastikas is shocking. For those of us for whom the swastika holds direct, personal family references, the sight of the unfurled symbols of evil sent a shuddering frisson of anger and rage through the heart. One hopes the symbols evoked a strong, if not quite similar reaction in most of the theatre goers of a certain age that day.

That we saw this performance merely four days after a howling throng of mostly masked thugs shouting for “intifadah right now” set upon The Eaton Centre in downtown Toronto, undoubtedly boosted the emotional response at the sight of the swastikas on stage. For, in truth, what is the essence of the message that urges intifadah, if not the celebration of and a call to repeat the Nazis’ genocide of European Jewry?

Pro-Hamas ruffians and haters would refuse us the right to live in Canada. Indeed, more truthfully, they probably would refuse us the right to live. Period.

If our society’s civic leaders do not actively, substantively – not merely rhetorically – oppose the thugs, then those very leaders are effectively allowing the society, that they purport to steward, to be unmistakably diminished. At what point will the protections against being victimized by hate, that are embedded in our laws, be so hollowed out by overt political hypocrisy and unembarrassed lack of use, as to cripple those protections altogether?

Do our elected leaders no longer stand for the safekeeping of our laws-based democracy?

Do they no longer stand for the protection of the Jewish community within our democracy?

Earlier this week, The Canadian Jewish News reported that Ontario’s Solicitor General, Michael Kerzner, “publicly call[ed] out Toronto police handling of ‘unacceptable’ anti-Israel protests.”

Kerzner told the paper: “What prompted my letter today to the chief of police and to the police service board was two years worth of harassment, intimidation, and hate that’s been directed to not only the Jewish community, but to law-abiding citizens of Ontario that make up the 99.99 per cent of the population that simply wants to go about their lives and live safely in their own homes and communities.”

GAJE commends the Solicitor General.

But all of us have a role to play in fighting back against the haters and proponents of intifada. Our role, as parents and as grandparents, is to equip our children with the knowledge of what it means to belong to our remarkable ancient/modern people.

In his commentary on this week’s Torah portion, Vayechi, Rabbi Marc D. Angel, of New York explains why: “Our continuity as a people is inextricably linked to our historical memory. We bring the past into the present; we project the present into the future. This is one of the great responsibilities of Jewish parents and grandparents—to imbue the younger generations with a sense of belonging to, and participating in, the history of our people.

“This is also one of our great privileges and a source of our deepest fulfillment as Jews.”

In other words, it falls to all of us to bring Jewish education to our children, so that they will want to – and know how – to bring themselves, in time, to the Jewish people.

•••

The CJN article is available at: https://thecjn.ca/news/ontarios-solicitor-general-publicly-calls-out-toronto-police-handling-of-unacceptable-anti-israel-protests/

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Am Yisrael Chai

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

January 2, 2026

Winter is now fully upon us. Cold winds blow across the wide, climatic landscape of 2025, causing us to buckle up against the chill. They also blow cold societally, causing Jews in particular, to do the same against a chill that cuts far deeper.

This update is the last of 2025. If the word “positive” can be applied to increments of very small measures, then 2025 was, indeed, positive for the advancement of GAJE’s mission. But ours is still a work in progress.

In February, GAJE was granted leave to appeal the decision by the Divisional Court some four months earlier, that had accepted Ontario’s arguments against allowing our case to proceed and threw it out of court. On November 21, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal. We await the Court’s decision.

If our appeal succeeds, GAJE will have won the right to argue the merits of our case in court. It bears repeating that we launched our original application for fairness in Ontario’s educational funding in February 2022. In August of 2023, Judge Papageorgiou ruled that our case should proceed to a full hearing on its merits.

And so, we wait, and hope, for a good result from the Court of Appeal.

GAJE was founded in April of 2015. We are patient and we are determined to carry the flag of our cause high, proudly and with deep historical purpose. We will do so until there are no longer any reasonable legal avenues for GAJE to try to advance the cause. This is a promise by GAJE to the Jewish community: to all the generations of our people present, future and past too. To our children and grandchildren. And to our ancestors, whose ways, beliefs, heritage, traditions and love taught us that we must cherish and defend what is true and precious for all eternity: Jewish peoplehood.

•••

Last week’s update contained a short paragraph that was written by the New York-based educator and scholar, Mijal Bitton. It began: “And with that grief came a familiar fear…” However, due to a lack of attention, her authorship was not attributed. We apologize for the oversight. An author’s work must always be acknowledged.

•••

If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit to achieve fairness in educational funding, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com  Thank you, in advance, for considering doing so.

•••

Shabbat shalom

Happy, healthy new year

Am Yisrael Chai

Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)

December 26, 2025