STATEMENT ON THE DECISION OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT

Released to local media June 26, 2012  

By returning total and absolute control of Brindi’s fate to HRM, today’s court decision firmly establishes that HRM is not answerable to any authority.

How is HRM to feign a sincere decision between adopting Brindi out, or putting her down? Ever since HRM seized Brindi after an incident in which no one was harmed, HRM has insisted she must die. Yet it has not conducted a single behavioral evaluation on her, and showed no interest in the results of the ones I commissioned. In fact, HRM blocked and/or attempted to sabotage them. But it failed.

HRM’s record of denying due process and procedural fairness was made clear in the Supreme Court decision of 2009. Yet no individual was ever held accountable, nor did HRM change its ways by amending even a single law or policy. It simply dug in its heels, refused to return Brindi, and retaliated by laying charges against me for an event that took place six months earlier. The pattern continued unabated.

HRM failed again in Court some 16 months later. Then it declined to cooperate with an order to allow Brindi to be trained at the kennel. After they blocked it for a month, I had to appeal to the media before HRM would comply.

By seizing and holding Brindi for years at a time, and in substandard conditions, HRM brought about permanent damage to her health. Since 2010, I have spent thousands of dollars of my money, so that a vet could monitor her chronic conditions and prevent her health from worsening. I provided ample documentation of the overall negative effects on Brindi’s health. Unfortunately, the judge chose to ignore it. Yet I have no doubt that if you or I were in HRM’s place, a Court would severely punish us, and we would become social pariahs. And rightly so.

Yet HRM has locked up Brindi for over half of her lifetime. It continues to deny her normal contact with other dogs. And up to today, barring a few months in 2010, HRM has held Brindi without any actual legal authority.

During all court proceedings, including this recent one, HRM consistently distorted the record, suppressed significant facts, and lied about Brindi and me. It lied to the public about us, and even about the law. Along the way, it has denied me normal contact with her: I have not seen her for nearly two years. I suffer a tremendous loss that will haunt me for the rest of my days.

After all this and more, for a court to entrust my dog’s fate to HRM, the very people responsible for such abuse, is horrifying. I fear it will very possibly prove fatal to Brindi.

I love my dog and miss her terribly. I did everything humanly possible to obey all laws and conditions. We were never given a fighting chance. And now, it is as though no trial or judicial review ever took place. 

I cannot stress enough how devastating this is to me, and to all who so generously gave of themselves to help, as well as all who trusted that the system would do the right thing.

Francesca Rogier, East Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia

What is the point of a justice system that gives away its power? HRM does not even have to report back to the Court after the arbitrary Aug. 21 "deadline." 

The judge said this trial would end in March. Then she dragged it out for three months. Thanks to her decision, Brindi will languish in the kennel for yet another summer - this time, without the benefit of monthly vet checks, which I have been providing all along. The sad thing is that on June 14, Brindi's latest blood test - paid for my me - showed normal pancreatic enzymes for the first time in nearly two years. This is very likely due to a month on a supplement called StemEnhance that the vet prescribed, at my request. I just supplied HRM with two more bottles. When those tablets run out - if Brindi ever gets them - it's unlikely HRM will provide more. It's very unlikely they will even do blood tests to check on her levels. 

There is no mystery: everyone knows Brindi is and has always been “adoptable”, and more.     

As for behavioral evaluations, I've had four of them done since 2008. HRM blocked the first one until I got a court order. The last one was June 13, as the judge and HRM well know. The results, positive as always, were submitted to the Court yesterday. I also submitted a letter from the vet, who is also qualified (perhaps more) to evaluate a dog. 


By saying that Brindi must be evaluated, the judge has ignored the word of both of these professionals and acted as though she is not in possession of their statements. This is incredible. 


By making such disingenuous statements as "This will allow us to evaluate Brindi," HRM's prosecutor is not only sharing in the judge's deception, but also masking the fact that HRM had nearly four years to do its own evaluation, yet declined. And in every instance, HRM tried to block or sabotage the tests. Thankfully, Brindi is just that good of a dog - nothing they do will bring about the results they want. And I am confident that HRM will never get a professional trainer or vet or behaviorist to agree with its long-held position that Brindi must be put down. 


I have no idea why the judge said HRM must not adopt (or put down) Brindi until August 21. It does not take two months to test and adopt out a dog. I can only wonder if the intention is to put it off long enough for the public to forget. But I won't forget. 


 I cannot imagine the kind of charade that will unfold from here on - will HRM acquiesce to the evaluation results? Will they somehow distort the results in order justify killing Brindi (euthanasia is the wrong term and I will not use it)? Will they pretend to adopt her out and secretly kill her?


Why would HRM even consider adopting her out? It would mean they were wrong. After all, for four years, HRM insisted Brindi must be killed. It refused my own offer/request from 2010, to adopt her out in exchange for a guilty plea. 

The prosecutor Katherine Salsman went on the radio not two weeks ago, saying that there are only "two options" - killing Brindi or returning her to me. And in her written statement to the court, she said there is only one correct option: to kill Brindi. 


The judge is fully aware of this. Yet she turned Brindi over to HRM to "decide".  

Video clips I submitted to the judge to refute the prosecutor's unproven claim that I was "not complying" with the muzzle order.