Court File and Parties
MOTION HEARD: 20260113
REASONS RELEASED: 20260506
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
DAVID MATLOW and ROBERT FELDMAN Plaintiffs
- and-
TORONTO ZIONIST COUNCIL c.o.b. CAMP SHALOM, PAUL ROTENBERG, REENA GREENWALD, GILBERT ZAMONSKY, NACHUM WOOLF and SANDY WOOLF Defendants
BEFORE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE McGRAW
COUNSEL: M. Katzman Email: mkatzman@katzmanlitigation.com -for the Proposed Intervenor, Friends of Shalom
A. Bourassa and M. Ross Email: abourassa@rossnasseri.com -for the Defendant Toronto Zionist Council c.o.b. Camp Shalom
M. Memmel Email: memmel@fasken.com -for the Plaintiffs
J. DiFederico Email: jdifederico@sblegal.com -for the Defendants Nachum Woolf and Sandy Woolf
D. Rahbar Email: nmcauley@fcl-law.com -for the Defendants Paul Rotenberg, Reena Greenwald and Gilbert Zamonsky
REASONS RELEASED: May 6, 2026
Reasons For Endorsement
I. Background
1This is a motion by the non-party Friends of Shalom (“FOS”) for leave to intervene in this action. The motion is opposed by the Defendant Toronto Zionist Council c.o.b. Camp Shalom (“TZC”). The Plaintiffs consent to the motion and the individual Defendants (the “Individual Defendants”) do not oppose.
2TZC is a non-profit organization whose mandate is to “increase or spread the growth and propagation of Zionism in the said City of Toronto and its environs”. TZC’s primary asset is Camp Shalom (the “Camp”), an overnight summer camp for Jewish children which has operated in Gravenhurst, Ontario since 1948. TZC owns and operates the Camp and the property on Lake Muskoka where it is situated (the “Camp Property”). In or about 1994-1995, TZC assumed control of the Camp and its operations as a result of a dispute with the Camp Shalom Committee (the “CSC”), the Camp’s previous operator. The Camp is affiliated with Canadian Young Judea, an organization which coordinates a network of 7 Canadian Jewish and Zionist summer camps and a guided trip to Israel for 16-year old campers. TZC’s other main asset is a commercial building at 788 Marlee Ave. in Toronto (the “Building”) where its offices are located. TZC leases units in the Building to other Jewish and Zionist organizations.
3TZC was originally incorporated in or about 1907 and reincorporated pursuant to Letters Patent dated April 1, 1942. TZC is run by a board of three volunteer directors (the “Board”). One of the directors, Guidy Mamann, has been a director since February 2024. He is a lawyer certified in refugee protection law and founding partner of an immigration and refugee law firm in Toronto. He has held numerous leadership positions in the Jewish community including as President of Toronto’s Jewish Immigrant Aid Services. He has been involved in Zionist activism for over 40 years including organizing Zionist rallies after October 7, 2023. The Individual Defendants are all former directors of TZC. The Camp is managed by a professional director. The Board recently established a Camp advisory committee comprised of parents of current campers which provides non-binding recommendations regarding its operations.
4The Plaintiff David Matlow is a lawyer residing in Toronto. Mr. Matlow’s father was a member of TZC from 1953-1974 and its former President. Mr. Matlow is a regular writer and speaker on Zionist issues; has participated in programs for the World, Canadian, American and Australian Zionist organizations; and is the Chair of the Local Zionist Court of Canada. The Plaintiff Robert Feldman is a chartered professional accountant residing in Toronto. Mr. Feldman is a former camper and staff member of the Camp, a senior member of the Young Judea Zionist movement and a member of CSC including its former Chairman and Treasurer. Mr. Feldman and his wife, a former Camp secretary, opposed TZC’s takeover of the Camp.
5Mr. Matlow wrote to TZC in January 2022 to introduce himself and request membership. He subsequently exchanged correspondence with TZC and spoke with several Board members about his membership request and his concerns that the Building had fallen into a state of disrepair and the use of funds related to the Building, the Camp, donations and contributions to TZC (“Charitable Property”) including for purposes outside of Toronto and improper payments to Board members.
6The Plaintiffs commenced this action by Statement of Claim issued on August 4, 2022. In their Amended Statement of Claim dated September 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs seek numerous declarations and orders with respect to TZC including the following:
i.) a declaration that TZC’s By-Laws and Amended Articles with respect to membership are ineffective, null and void, ultra vires, contrary to TZC’s 1980 Constitution and of no force and effect. The Plaintiffs allege that TZC has limited membership to individuals whose perspective on Zionism is the same as the existing directors and synonymous with TZC contrary to TZC’s objects to, among other things, unite all persons within Toronto in carrying on, promoting, enlarging and propagating the idea and ideals of Zionism in accordance with the principles, aspirations and policies of the Zionist movement in Canada and/or Zionism in all of its ramifications (the “Objects”). The Plaintiffs claim that this has created a closed society which is contrary to TZC’s historical approach which is more accepting of diverse perspectives regarding Zionism. As a result, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the there are no duly elected directors and that the Charitable Property, including the Camp, may not be transferred, encumbered or expended without court approval;
ii.) a declaration that TZC’s 1980 Constitution is in full force and effort and that its purported 1994 Constitution is null and void;
iii.) a declaration that Mr. Matlow is a member of TZC and/or the Plaintiffs are entitled to be members;
iv.) restraining any directors whose appointment or election is disputed from acting, declaring the result of the disputed election or appointment and requiring a new election or appointment including directions for the management of the activities and affairs of TZC until a new election is held and determining the voting rights of any members or those who claim to be members including the Plaintiffs;
v.) declarations that the Individual Defendants are not duly appointed members, officers or directors of TZC and were trustees de son tort with respect to the Charitable Property and that TZC’s By-Law with respect to the indemnification of Board members is ultra vires and contrary to the 1980 Constitution;
vi.) replacing the current TZC directors with the appropriate number of directors, up to 40 under the 1980 Constitution, who reflect the Objects
vii.) declarations that if there are no directors or members of TZC, the Plaintiffs are interested parties and complainants pursuant to the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (Ontario) (“ONCA”) and appointing the appropriate number of directors up to 40 who should reflect the principles, aspirations and policies of the Zionist movement per the Objects;
viii.) alternatively, requiring TZC to distribute funds from the Charitable Property in accordance with the Objects and restraining TZC from expending or making distributions other than for the Objects or duly incurred expenses and to retain an independent auditor to audit TZC’s books and records, declaring the indemnification provisions of no force and effect, restore funds paid under the indemnification provisions, compliance with any restraining orders and appointment of an investigator under the ONCA;
ix.) declarations that TZC holds its property for charitable purposes pursuant to the Charities Accounting Act (Ontario), that it is required to use the Charitable Property only for charitable purpose in accordance with the Objects and that the Individual Defendants have caused or participated in breaches of trust;
x.) directions with respect to TZC’s present and future Charitable Property, replacing the directors, an accounting by the Individual Defendants and in the alternative, requiring TZC to only expend funds out of the Charitable Property pursuant to the Objects and retain a qualified auditor to audit TZC’s books.
7TZC delivered its Statement of Defence on September 28, 2023 and its Fresh As Amended Statement of Defence on March 7, 2025.
8FOS is a non-profit organization which was formed in April 2025 for the purpose of intervening in this action to represent the Camp community’s interests and present its members’ concerns and perspectives regarding the Camp. FOS is comprised of approximately 155 individuals including parents of current campers, Camp alumni and former staff. It is led by 3 volunteer directors.
9I have been case managing this action since the first attendance on September 12, 2023. There have been 14 attendances including 13 case conferences. This motion first came before me at a case conference on August 26, 2025. The return date was scheduled at a case conference on September 15, 2025 after TZC and FOS were unable to agree on terms for FOS’ intervention. At the time this motion was argued, the parties were scheduled to attend trial scheduling court on April 26, 2026. A motion by the Plaintiffs for further productions is scheduled to proceed before me on June 8, 2026.
III. The Law and Analysis
10For the reasons that follow, FOS is granted leave to intervene on the terms set out below.
11Rule 13.01 states:
. “(1) A person who is not a party to a proceeding may move for leave to intervene as an added party if the person claims,
(a) an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;
(b) that the person may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding; or
(c) that there exists between the person and one or more of the parties to the proceeding a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding.
(2) On the motion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding and the court may add the person as a party to the proceeding and may make such order as is just.”
12Granting leave to intervene is discretionary and the proposed intervenor is only required to satisfy one of the 3 tests in Rule 13.01(1) (Conti v. Duca, 2023 ONSC 6626; aff’d Conti v. Daytona Auto Centre Ltd., 2024 ONSC 4564, City of Ottawa v. Clublink Corp., ULC, 2019 ONSC 7470 at para. 12). This discretion is to be exercised on a case-by-case basis (Clublink at para. 20).
13When determining whether leave to intervene should be granted, the court should consider the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the proposed intervenor being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the matter without causing injustice to the immediate parties (Peel (Regional Municipality) et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. et al., 1990 6886 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 1378 (C.A.)) at para. 10; Jones v. Taige (2011), 2011 99894 (ON CA), 106 O.R. (3d) 721 (C.A.) at para. 22; Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2025 ONCA 578 at para. 5; Clublink at para. 24). The nature of the proposed intervenor's contribution to the litigation is an important consideration, which must be useful and more than mere repetition of the position advanced by the parties (De Longte v. De Longte, 2025 ONCA 338 at para. 8). Where the intervention is sought in a private dispute the standard to be met by the proposed intervenor is more onerous or more stringently applied (Jones at para. 23; De Longte at para. 6).
14C.U.C. MacLeod J. (as then he was) provided the following guidance in Clublink, a case relied on by both TZC and FOS:
22 Intervention is not a shortcut to avoid the necessity of commencing a separate proceeding. It is a narrow right for the intervenor to add its voice to a matter that is already before the court. The cases establish that an intervenor cannot add new issues to the litigation. At the same time, their contribution must be more than saying "me too". That is, it is not useful to the court or fair to the parties simply to have an intervenor repeat the same arguments as one of the existing parties.
23 Intervention, even intervention as a party, is quite different from commencing a separate proceeding with common issues and asking that the two be heard together. It is different in nature from joinder as a necessary party under Rule 5.03. That rule provides for the addition of parties whose participation is deemed necessary. Rule 13, by contrast, is a rule providing for the addition of a party who shares an interest in the proceeding and whose participation is deemed useful. Although an intervenor may be given rights almost as broad as a full party, their participation should be restricted to its proper purpose. If the intervenor wishes broader rights which would add new issues or complexity, the better approach is to commence a separate proceeding.”
15FOS wishes to intervene to advocate for a TZC governance structure which ensures that the Camp community has an appropriate voice in decisions about the Camp’s operation and specifc to the following concerns and allegations:
i.) that members of the Camp community do not have a sufficient voice in the operation of the Camp. Unlike many non-profit organizations, Camp families do not vote on Board members, the current Board members have little connection to the Camp or camp experience. FOS acknowledges that TZC recently established a parent advisory committee to which a member of FOS was appointed;
ii.) that Camp revenues are not being sufficiently reinvested in maintaining and upgrading the Camp’s infrastructure and are instead being used for non-Camp activities;
iii.) potential security risks to campers as a result of TZC’s participation in non-Camp activities particularly in the context of rallies after October 7, 2023 and the rise of anti-Semitism in Canada and the Greater Toronto Area.
16If granted leave, FOS submits that it will not seek any relief, injunctive or otherwise, nor will it simply repeat the positions of any other parties, including the Plaintiffs. FOS states that it will advocate for the following objectives:
i.) the continuity and preservation of title to the Camp Property;
ii.) the extent of capital investment in the Camp and Camp facilities to bring the condition of the Camp in line with comparable summer camps operating in Ontario;
iii.) the extent to which revenues from the Camp’s operations can be used for activities that do not benefit campers and staff;
iv.) the extent to which non-Camp related activities or initiatives are permitted to impact the security which campers and staff are required to assume.
17FOS requests leave to intervene on the following terms:
i.) FOS shall be added as a party to the action;
ii.) FOS will be permitted to lead evidence at trial on the issues it has raised on this motion with its evidence in chief limited to one day excluding cross-examinations, subject to the discretion of the trial Judge to order otherwise;
iii.) FOS will provide detailed will-say statements for its witnesses at least 30 days in advance of trial;
iv.) FOS will provide copies of all documents on which it intends to rely at trial not already produced by the parties at least 30 days in advance of the pre-trial, will not serve an affidavit of documents and no party will be required to produce a supplementary affidavit of docujments due to FOS’ intervention. Existing parties may request production of documents or categories of documents from FOS that are relevant and not privileged;
v.) FOS will not conduct or submit to examinations for discovery;
vi.) given the purpose and limited nature of FOS’ involvement, it will neither seek nor be liable for costs under Rule 57;
vii.) FOS will ensure that the evidence it leads at trial will be limited and not duplicative with evidence led by other parties.
18TZC submits that, among other things, FOS is seeking its own relief including permament injunctive relief and advancing distinct claims which would expand the scope, duration and complexity of the litigation and cause TZC to incur significant additional costs. Therefore, TZC argues that FOS’ concerns should be addressed by commencing its own action against TZC or working together with the Plaintiffs to call FOS representatives as witnesses at trial.
19Both TZC and FOS veered off into the merits of the disputed issues and FOS’ allegations on numerous issues. While it is appropriate to identify the issues which will be determined at trial, this is a procedural motion with respect to participation in this action and therefore not the proper forum to make submissions on the merits of the disputed issues which the trial Judge will determine, (Clublink at para. 3).
20I conclude that FOS has satisfied all three (3) categories under Rule 13.01(1).
21I am satisfied that FOS has demonstrated that it has an interest in the subject matter of these proceedings. A proposed intervenor must establish the presence of an adverse effect on their legal rights such that they have rights or interests at stake or relief is sought against them as opposed to adverse findings or observations or negative comments (Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Co. v. Geto Investments Ltd., [2002] O.J. No. 378 (S.C.J.) at para. 20).
22In my view, two of the primary issues in this action as pleaded are TZC’s governance structure and membership and its use of Charitable Property, including the Camp Property and related funds. TZC submits that the Plaintiffs do not seek any specific relief regarding the control, governance, management, operations, physical infrastructure or finances of the Camp. This view is inconsistent with the Amended Statement of Claim as pleaded. As summarized above, the Plaintiffs request multiple heads of relief with respect to some of these issues. This includes a change in TZC’s governance and membership structure and TZC’s use of the Charitable Property, including the Camp Property and the Camp. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that Board membership and the use of Charitable Property should be in accordance with the Objects. This is similar, and in certain respects, overlaps with the concerns raised by FOS including its assertion that Camp families and the wider Camp community require a greater voice in the Camp and FOS’ concerns regarding the use of proceeds from the Camp for non-Camp purposes, which are part of the Charitable Property. The Plaintiffs also request that the Camp not be transferred or encumbered which is similar to FOS’ concerns regarding the disposition of the Camp Property. In all of this, FOS’ interests are related to the Camp, the Camp Property and related funds which comprise a significant part of the Charitable Property which is at issue in this action. Further, the litigation engages the underlying membership and governance structure of the Board including who should have representation and how it should be exercised.
23I reject TZC’s characterization of FOS’ interest as merely sentimental, emotional or ideological. In addition to the issues raised and relief sought by the Plaintiffs, approximately 36% of FOS’ members are parents of current campers. I do not accept TZC’s submission that this is an insufficient number or that the tuition which camper families pay is simply money for goods and services that they receive from the Camp. Tuition fees are revenues which comprise part of the Charitable Property which is at issue in this action. Further, campers historically attend the Camp throughout their youth, they are not one-off attendees and some move on to become staff members. In the overall context of the Camp and its Objects, campers and their families cannot be dismissed as ordinary customers. Consistent with the court’s conclusions in Clublink, I am satisfied that FOS’ members have a specific interest in the litigation which FOS is well placed to represent (Clublink at para. 17). I accept that TZC has identified some issues which go beyond the scope of the current dispute or are too specific, however, these can be adequately addressed by ordering the appropriate terms and managed effectively by the trial Judge.
24I am also satisfied that FOS would be adversely affected by a judgment in this action. If the Plaintiffs are unsuccessful in obtaining relief with respect to changing TZC’s governance and membership, FOS will be denied the voice in the Camp which it seeks for the broader Camp comumunity including Camp families. The same holds true with respect to FOS’ issues with the use of the Camp Property and Camp funds for non-Camp activities which are inconsistent with the Objects.
25Similarly, I conclude that FOS has questions of law or fact in common with the parties. As set out above, FOS and the Plaintiffs have multiple issues in common including TZC’s governance structure and membership and the use of Charitable Property, including the Camp Property and funds related to the Camp, and all in accordance with the Objects.
26I also find that FOS would make a useful contribution to these proceedings which would not simply repeat the Plaintiffs’ submissions. FOS would bring the perspective of the Camp community which TZC serves, including current Camp families. Given the relevance of the Camp and the Camp Property to the governance and Charitable Property issues which are in dispute, this perspective would assist the court and inform the record. In particular, current families would be able to provide material and timely insight into past, current and future issues regarding governance and Charitable Property as it relates to the Camp. In addition, Camp alumni and former staff would bring a helpful perspective regarding the Camp’s history as they relate to the Objects.
27I am also satisfied that although this is a private dispute and therefore a more onerous threshold applies, the broader context and circumstances must be taken into consideration (Clublink at para. 14). Namely, FOS’ request must be considered in the context of the historical, religious and cultural importance of the Camp and TZC to a broad community. While it does not engage the wider public interest, there is a community of current Camp families who are affected and together with past campers have an interest due to the Camp’s extensive history and its prominent place in the Jewish and Zionist culture in the GTA.
28I also conclude that FOS’ participation would not result in any injustice or prejudice to TZC. TZC argues that it would suffer prejudice because FOS’ participation goes far beyond the scope of the litigation and would increase the duration and complexity of the trial and significantly increase its costs. As of the return of this motion, the length of trial remained in dispute but was estimated at 10-15 days. TZC asserts that granting FOS leave to intervene would add 5 days to the trial. There is no basis in the record to support this claim even if FOS were to intervene on the terms it requests. There is also no suggestion that granting leave would delay the trial. I am of the view that the issues raised by TZC are not a reason to deny leave to intervene but rather can be addressed by ordering appropriate terms and managed by the trial Judge.
29In addressing potential prejudice, I agree with TZC that FOS should not be exempt from costs consequences. Since FOS asks to be a party, make submissions on numerous issues and call witnesses and lead evidence, there is no basis to exempt it from any costs consequences which may arise from its participation. FOS advised that it would be agreeable to defer costs to the trial Judge. TZC argues that it is unknown if FOS has any assets therefore, if leave is granted, FOS should be required to post $100,000 in security for costs or a decision on leave should be reserved until TZC brings a security for costs motion. The current motion is not the appropriate time to seek this relief particularly before FOS’ status is determined and in the absence of a proper motion by TZC supported by motion materials. If TZC wishes to bring a security for costs motion it may be spoken to and scheduled before me if the parties cannot otherwise agree on security.
30Having considered the relevant factors, I conclude that it is just in the circumstances to exercise the court’s discretion to grant leave for FOS to intervene in this action. However, the terms proposed by FOS must be amended and narrowed to ensure that they are consistent with the purpose of its intervention, minimize additional trial time and balance the rights and interests of FOS and the existing parties. To this end, I have concluded that, while important, the issues raised by FOS with respect to Camp security and issues with respect to the day-to-day operations of the Camp are beyond the scope of this action. For clarity, this does not prohibit FOS from making submissions with respect to non-Camp activities and the use of Charitable Property for such activities nor does it restrict submissions with respect to Board decisions which may impact day-to-day operations of the Camp as distinct from the specific activities of staff in running the Camp.
31FOS is granted leave to intervene on the following terms:
i.) FOS shall be added as a party to this action;
ii.) FOS shall not seek any relief in these proceedings;
iii.) FOS shall be liable for any costs as may be determined in the discretion of the trial judge and/or any other judicial official(s) as applicable in these proceedings;
iv.) FOS shall not participate in any examinations for discovery and the parties shall not be required to deliver supplementary affidavits of documents as a result of FOS’ participation;
v.) subject to the discretion of the trial Judge and, as applicable, the pre-trial Judge, FOS shall be limited to an opening statement of 20 minutes and a closing statement of 30 minutes; shall have one (1) day at trial to present its evidence in chief (including cross-examination of its witnesses by other parties) and may only cross-examine other parties’ witnesses for a maximum of 20 minutes each;
vi.) subject to the discretion of the trial Judge and as applicable, the pre-trial Judge, FOS shall not make submissions or lead evidence which is duplicative of other parties and FOS’ submissions and evidence shall be limited to TZC’s governance and membership and the use of Charitable Property in accordance with the Objects and specifically the use of Camp funds and Camp Property for the benefit of campers and Camp staff. Consistent with my directions above, FOS shall not lead evidence or make submissions with respect to day-to-day Camp operations and security issues unless raised by the parties or permitted by the trial Judge.
vii.) FOS shall produce all documents on which it intends to rely at trial which have not already been produced by the other parties at least 60 days prior to the pre-trial conference without prejudice to the parties’ rights to request them sooner,
viii.) FOS shall provide detailed will-say statements for its witnesses on a timetable to be agreed by the parties or ordered by the pre-trial Judge;
ix.) FOS’ intervention is without prejudice to other parties’ rights to seek security for costs.
32I conclude that these terms are just in all of the circumstances and consistent with the requirement to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the issues in these proceedings on the merits pursuant to Rule 1.04(1).
III. Disposition and Costs
33Order to go granting FOS leave to intervene on the terms set out above. Counsel may schedule a telephone case conference with me if any clarifications on the terms of intervention are required or to speak to the form of order.
34FOS and the parties shall attempt to resolve the costs of this motion. They should consider deferring costs until trial or to be spoken to and determined by me after further procedural steps have been completed. If the parties cannot agree, they may file written costs submissions not to exceed 4 pages (excluding Costs Outlines) with me. If the parties cannot agree on a timetable to do so, they may speak to one at a future attendance before me.
Released: May 6, 2026
Associate Justice McGraw