Thoughts on Dangerous Dogs & Seizure Warrants in Halifax

I believe in good animal control and good dog by-laws because public safety is important. I don't happen to believe in putting a healthy dog down.

Dogs just don't rate high enough as a threats to human life to merit killing them if they step out of line. Dogs don't even show up on the top 50 causes of accidental death and injury. So to me, killing a healthy dog because it inflicts harm, or is said to be likely to inflict harm, is unacceptably disproportionate. It's also immoral, when you consider that Canada no longer kill humans who kill other humans.

When balanced against the enormous value of the human-canine bond that predates modern society, killing healthy dogs seems very immoral. People have kept dogs for some 30,000 years - longer than there were cities, laws, and the family as we know it - and the human-canine bond is likely to endure longer than those institutions. True, not everybody likes dogs, but dogs serve everybody - in security, in special needs cases, at hospitals, and, lord knows, in research! So it's only right that our laws reflect how important dogs are to us.

As a result, any city insisting it has a right to destroy lawfully owned dogs must insure that those laws are fair and and effective. Above all, they must avoid infringing rights and harming dogs needlessly. And the most important part of dog by-laws is the definition of dangerous at their core. Without a reasonable, science-based definition of "dangerous", no dog laws can be fair or effective. When we look at how Halifax deals with "dangerous", however, things don't look so good.

Under Halifax local law,  deeming a dog dangerous doesn't require Halifax to seize and kill the dog in question, regardless of circumstance. The law doesn't stipulate when Halifax should kill a dog, such as following a serious incident. It leaves all of this up to the animal control officer and the prosecutor. 

Halifax you are NOT entitled to adopt Brindi out! She already has a loving home - my home!

 

So tonight CTV Atlantic ran a top story saying "Brindi the dog gets new owner" [Ed. note: The story was taken down a few days later]. That's news to me!

You might expect me to welcome such news, but I could not be more upset. And for a host of reasons.

Sure, I got an email from the HRM prosecutor Katherine Salsman on Monday, saying HRM will "proceed with the adoption". What adoption, I asked? Just days before, and ever since 2010, this woman has had a one-track mind about killing Brindi.*

   
Then I warned her that it was not entitled to do this legally - not now and not for a long time, thanks to the lawsuit that HRM itself forced me to file back in 2008 (more on this below).

But I didn't think CTV would just blindly report this story without checking facts. And, they said they tried to contact me for a comment. Yet I didn't get one call, email, or tweet, nothing. 

FIRST: THIS IS A MASSIVE REVERSAL FOR HRM! 

Did anybody think to ask the responsible parties at city hall why, after SEVEN YEARS of trying to kill her (lawfully or unlawfully), they are suddenly willing to let my beautiful, smart, loving girl live?

Isn't HRM essentially conceding it's been wrong all along??

I think so. So my heart has been broken over and over, I lived through hell for seven years, suffering from trauma after trauma, fear and grief, PTSD, depression, enduring countless losses and hardship, unable to work full time, unable to complete major home renovations, unable to live, essentially - and the same for Brindi, who has been made ill and kept in isolation year after year after year, all for nothing. Of course, for nothing. I already knew this - so did HRM, frankly, because it always knew it had no case for seizing and killing Brindi. 

But no way does HRM now get to do an about-face and talk about adoption as if it was already a done-deal. Not so fast!!! Not until and unless those responsible are held accountable for all the damage done, in addition to wasting taxpayer money on needless and, let's be honest, malicious prosecution.

SECONDLY... Can we believe HRM and its prosecutor, Ms. Salsman? 

How do we know for sure what HRM will really do with Brindi, let alone what it is doing to her now? Not only has HRM been dishonest in the past about Brindi and other dogs; its "staff" have cloaked themselves in excessive secrecy, the kind that shouts "We have something to hide!"

THIRDLY... It's a bit premature for HRM to announce adoption, because of the following.

What is a puncture wound? How prosecutors use words when hard evidence is lacking.

 

This photo shows the worst injury  said to result from an incident between Brindi and a dog named Lucy in front of her house one dark night in 2010.

HRM calls it a puncture wound. 

There was also a shallow abrasion about the same on Lucy's opposite shoulder, and a scratch on one ear, which was not photographed.  
No photos of injuries Brindi allegedly caused before 2010 - i.e., before she was seized to be killed in 2008 - are available. This is because there was nothing worth photographing.

What gets me is that nobody in the media and very few others noticed the glaring absence of the customary bloody photos of a "victim dog". Did they not ask why HRM never released any photos to the media? I was too busy trying to keep my head above water to even think of it, and nobody ever asked. Yet this photo is really all HRM had to show when it tried a third time to get a lawful order to kill Brindi. And failed a third time.

These photos show injuries sustained by a dog in a dog attack from 2014.
It penetrated through all layers of skin. And it needed stitches and a drainage tube to keep it from becoming infected. 
The injured dog's vet care cost its owner over $2,000.  

This is the image the words "puncture wound" conjure up in people's minds.

HRM did not seize the dog that attacked. It did not prosecute its owners with the aim of obtaining a court order to destroy the dog. It did issue a fine and a muzzle order. However, not long afterwards, the dog was reported - and photographed - running at large with no muzzle on.  

A muzzle order violation! The only reason HRM seized Brindi twice.
But for that dog, HRM, or rather Officer Brad Kelly, did nothing about it. That dog is still running loose on a beach near you.

This is the vet bill from the injuries allegedly caused by Brindi.
There is a second bill two weeks later.












Why is HRM doing this to us?

Who put the "no" in Nova Scotia? My December 2010 Memo to HRM Prosecutor Katherine Salsman

I  met with Ms. Salsman for three hours in early December, 2010 - exactly five years ago -  to offer five possible options for Brindi, in return for me pleading guilty and paying fines on three offences HRM graciously charged me for one incident, even though that incident happened by mistake and led to no "measurable harm" as they say.

By then HRM had been holding Brindi for nearly three months - again. HRM by-law thugs (sorry, but they were) had also evicted me from my home unlawfully, and Dawn Sloane and other members of Council refused to allow me my right of appeal. So my cat Amelia and I were essentially homeless. 

Two friends came with me to that meeting. It was Ms. Salsman who declared that the meeting was not a negotiation because she refused to negotiate. I said fine, I will talk, and you will listen! And since it wasn't a negotiation then there was no obligation for confidentiality. This was clear. 

Ms. Salsman, with an alarming air of authority (not to say belligerence) for someone so recently out of law school, vetoed every single offer. When I asked to talk with her superior, she thoroughly blocked that idea.

My friends and I went home. Or rather, I left, and they went home. I tried not to lose my mind. I wrote up what we each said in a memo and sent it to her about a week later. She wrote back insisting on confidentiality after the fact, even threatened various consequences. Too late.

So this is the memo. 


December 14, 2010

Dear Ms. Salsman:

Here is a summary of your position and points you expressed last Friday in our meeting and in
other conversations and documents since October.

• HRM is seeking guilty verdicts on one or more of three charges solely for the purpose of
obtaining a court order to kill Brindi.

• You rejected my offer to plead guilty on all three charges in exchange for Brindi’s return and
stated that HRM plans to ask for one dollar fines and seek a court order to destroy my dog.

• Under no circumstances will you, as HRM prosecutor,

1. Release Brindi pending trial, even on a bond as high as $10,000, which I offered.
2. Let her go to a foster home pending trial.
3. Drop the HRM request to put Brindi down.
4. Let her go back with me to the States (or anywhere else) permanently.
5. Let her go to another owner, either here or anywhere else.
6. Make or accept any offer for me to get her back and keep her alive.

• HRM will return Brindi only if ordered to [do so] by a court.

With regard to your goal as prosecutor, you stated further that:

• Under the law, you are not required to show any grounds for putting Brindi down,* though
you concede no reasonable court will order destruction of life without sufficiently compelling
arguments.

How to Bury a Dog & Her Human Alive, Layer by Layer

Why do people insist on believing that the 2012 ruling I am appealing ordered HRM to adopt Brindi, when HRM itself doesn't see it that way?

How can I possibly ever win an appeal in a case riddled with twisted truths, gross exaggerations, key omissions, sheer lies?  This is not a game I know how to play.

Background: parsing court rulings

Judge Buchan's sentence, June 26 2012, p. 9 *

“But for her complacency for ensuring that Brindi could not act out her territorial aggression on other innocent dogs after having been given more than adequate opportunity to do so, I am satisfied that Brindi cannot safely be returned to Ms. Rogier.”

Okay so I cannot help but take it apart. Humour me please. 

her complacency: not a correct or fair conclusion to draw from strict liability offences where intent is not considered. And both she and HRM acknowledged the window mistake was unintentional I testified that I had otherwise always muzzled/leashed her in the car even though I knew it put her at risk; that night the hot weather dictated not leaving them on in a parking lot; I testified that I believed I had secured the car. None of that is consistent with complacency.

And the term is otherwise completely contradicted by a wealth of evidence, including the uncontested fact that I not only met but exceeded the court conditions by continuing training voluntarily, confirmed by the trainer’s testimony and her special statement for sentencing that set out the training details and her assessment of Brindi; a letter of support for Brindi and her confidence in me from our vet, and two sworn affidavits attesting to my rigorous attention to the conditions and to training. Plus informal letters from local mothers of small children. 

Why won't you step up, Hope Swinimer? Open Letter to Halifax Pound Contractor

As a famous John once famously said to a famous Paul, "How do you sleep?"

You made your name saving wild animals with Hope for Wildlife. You founded Homeward Bound Citypound as the pound contractor for the Halifax Regional Municipality since 2010, taking over from the SPCA. Your goal, you told me, was to gain addition income for the wildlife rehab centre - to pay two staff members, if I remember correctly.

So essentially you are using this business, the pound, to support your wild-life rehab. 
And in its day-to-day business, the pound carries out various functions, including executing orders for and by the Halifax Regional Municipality. [It is part of the municipal system of by-law enforcement. The same system that took my dog away from me twice, under questionable circumstances, and had you hold her indefinitely since 2010 [though as seized property, the law compels it to be returned if, like Brindi, it is not evidence].

My question to you is simple: when are you going to finally stand up for Brindi? She's an animal too, just like the wild ones you love to rescue.

Doesn't my dog have the same right to a good life as a wild animal? How is keeping her kenneled year after year a good life? Why did you allow your subcontractor to swear to a judge she is okay when you know very well she isn't? She's got at least two chronic diseases!

We both know you have been profiting from your business, and it's no exaggeration to say it was my fight for Brindi that opened up this opportunity for you in 2010. So haven't you been essentially profiting from our misery for five years now? Five years!! And for those five years she and I suffered while you collected a healthy sum - something like $2.5 million for the first three years? How much more now, since the new contract last March? I don't know. I don't want to know.

What I do know is, I did some good volunteer work for you at Hope for Wildlife for over a year. The peace pole standing on your property right now was my project, done at your special request, from start to finish. From finding the right artist, commissioning it, selecting the design, the languages, and organizing its fabrication and delivery, to choosing its location on your land. Then, though I did not feel up to it because the city had taken Brindi from me just weeks before, and I could hardly bear being in public, I designed and organized the unveiling ceremony too, for you! I'd lost about 15 pounds by then, was unable to eat because of Brindi. Everybody noticed.

I want my dog back!

My work at your open house for the kids, again at your request, where I came up with a fun way to make bird beaks with real feathers, teaching about shapes of beaks, was a big hit. I did it because I love animals, I did it because I believed in you. 

I cannot tell you how saddening it is to me, to be repaid this way. To know that I also sought your help, in trust, and instead you saw it as an opportunity to advance your own interests and simply took it.

You know how much Brindi means to me. How can you live with yourself, truly?

Why won't Halifax tell me how Brindi is, or take her to her vet?

I can no longer shut my ears from the question people keep asking me: What makes you think Brindi is still alive? 

They seem to be asking this more than ever. And I am worried more than ever. I ask HRM often, and they refuse to give me any information. They used to just ignore the question. But more recently they  say they are "satisfied" that they don't have to give me any info on Brind because she is not relevant to the appeal. Not relevant? She is the whole reason for the appeal. I am not satisfied.

How can I write a brief without knowing how she is, or if she is? I cannot, I am finding. I haven't got anything to go on for three years. What I do know is she is not healthy per se because of her chronic conditions. And I know she is not getting the supplement that stabilizes her blood enzymes. And there is no reason on earth HRM is not able to tell me or to take her to Dr. Larkin for a checkup. Dr. Larkin has written several times as well, no answer. So it is maddeningly worrying. It's totally debilitating in fact. Paralyzing.

I am going to have to do something soon about it, somehow, because for weeks and weeks I've been having migraines, flare-ups of muscle pain, insomnia. By now I cannot focus or concentrate at all, I sleep randomly, I can't manage the house or bills or anything. It's too much. And the work for court is incredibly complicated, the papers riddled with reminders that trigger PTSD like nobody's business. I stare in lockdown-mode for hours. Then suddenly a memory stabs my brain and I'm sobbing for fifteen minutes.

Nobody should have to live like this. My house is a mess. I can't work. I have no holiday plans, the seventh year in a row. I can't fly to the US to see my 94 year-old mother. I have nothing to look forward to - nothing but more difficulty and hardship, and possibly much more grief, because this is my last chance.

Not-So-Secret Lies and Ugly Truths

This Time It's Personal

Did the Halifax municipal prosecutor lie in August when she declined a deal to let Brindi go to the US in return for me to withdraw my appeal?  

After a winter like no other - six to eight inches of solid ice for months and record snows that drove everyone a bit mad here - I ended up spending the summer recovering from surgery for ovarian cancer. It was a double-whammy procedure to remove a large malignant tumour on my ovary, as well as certain lady parts I wasn't too happy about losing. I held my breath until the biopsies came back, and by August the coast was clear and I was able to get around on my own. But I was still far too dazed and worn to tackle yet more court documents. I can't help feeling they're what made me sick in the first place, frankly.

Brindi in distress, ca. 30 minutes after seizure, Sept. 24, 2010.

(Imagine if your best friend was put on death row, and their life depended entirely on you, and your ability to fake a language known only to members of a private club. Your friend will die unless you find the right combination of signs and sounds to convince a judge to listen to you instead of the club member in the room - the prosecutor, a native speaker. Then imagine having to do this over and over, year after year, to keep your friend alive, as they grow sick and old. You know you will never speak the language yet you have no choice. You can never see your friend; and after a time, no one will tell you if they are even alive. That's more or less my life.)

I was at the point that I could not tolerate it anymore. So I asked a kind relative I haven’t seen in decades to call HRM solicitor Katherine Salsman on my behalf and ask once more if she would agree to mediation. When she said no, he went ahead and made an offer to adopt Brindi, suggesting that in return I might be persuaded to drop my appeal. 

She declined his offer as "too complicated" - and then said to my amazement that HRM had a family all picked out to adopt Brindi.

HRM Animal By-law A-700 shocker! New money-maker for Halifax preserves A-300's biggest flaws

[Update: Overnight, a Change.org petition appeared: Mayor Savage Fix the Animal Control By-law A-700. Please sign and share!]

Reading A-700 gives me the distinct impression that HRM Council feels I got off lightly. And yet even though HRM has struck out three times in its bid to kill her, Brindi is still locked up after seven years. There is nothing light about that.

Timing is everything... and everything about the timing of the release of the "new" By-Law A-700 for the Halifax Regional Municipality (I'll never comprehend how a municipality can be regional) is simply nuts. And that's just the beginning!

I have not blogged for months. There are a lot of important reasons; they all add up to what I call flatlining. But I can't talk about that now. I have to talk about this. I am trying very hard to meet a court deadline, resuming with reluctance this very difficult task, after trying very hard to find representation - coming close but no cigar. Having to turn away offers of work as this deadline approaches doesn't make it any easier. Neither does having my head explode more than once in the past four weeks by things that just never happen but somehow did to me. Things best left unsaid, for now.

Now I am just speechless - A-700???  I am trying to overcome all manner of obstacles - financial, physical, emotional, spiritual, you name it, to appeal charges under A-300 and the horrible sentence under the little-known "additional penalty" clause tucked into the voluminous HRM Charter, and suddenly this A-700 drops from the sky. It should be called "A-007 Skyfall"! The HRM "Regional" Council voted on it a month ago, and whisked it into effect so fast this weekend, I never even heard it was thinking of it. Even a friend who reads the paper every day missed it. Maybe they wanted to avoid the long years of Council debates before A-300 went into effect?

Still, I would have thought Council would want to make sure it heard from the public first, especially since it had to change A-300 right away when folks went ballistic over the cat licenses. Apparently everybody missed the fact that A-300 contained sections that violate Charter rights, one of which I had to go to court about when it seized Brindi so wrongly and, it turned out, unlawfully.

Council sort of lost the trust of a lot of people after that too. It sure lost mine. Words cannot express the magnitude of the consequences of the way Animal Services treated me and my dog since 2008 - no end of drastic financial and material loss it's caused me, with years of lost income, the extreme and sustained emotional distress of separation and worry about Brindi, not to mention the effects on my professional and personal reputation - with social shunning as well as outright attack from stalkers, cyberstalkers, and cyberbullying from total strangers.

However, reading A-700 gives me the distinct impression that HRM Council feels I got off lightly.

Looking Back

When HRM seized Brindi intending to put her down in 2008 under very murky circumstances, it forced me into court twice, right off the bat: first, to suspend the date they picked out to kill her, because they didn't provide any form of appeal, and second, because they refused to reconsider their decision, would not meet with me or my local councillor, would not read letters from everybody from next-door neighbours with infants to kennel owners, groomers, and even the Canadian Post letter carrier. So the first filing was about wrongful seizure - and it would easily have taken a year to resolve.

Then, when HRM not only refused to meet with me and then refused to allow Brindi to be assessed, I had no choice but to file another application on the law itself - because even a former junior high student council president like me could tell it was unconstitutional. Not to mention, the Animal (Dis)Services people were delighting in having found their first victim - a docile rescue dog that didn't scare them in the least.

And, I never imagined the city would allow the matter to actually go to court! I thought, surely they'd want to avoid that embarrassment, and would rather discuss returning Brindi with me in exchange for four actions on my part - paying fines - once they charged me with something, as they'd leapt from a mild warning to drastic action; installing a dog run attached to the back door to prevent escapes, which I did while waiting; complying with a muzzle order, another drastic action that violated the same rights; I'd hoped to appeal it, but discovered there was no way to do it; and lastly, do specialized training with Brindi on her reactions to certain dogs approaching the property.

Boy was I wrong! The team of lawyers running city hall is pretty confident of themselves. And they are really sore losers. "Why should we abandon our position?" is their mantra.

But still! Sections that violate basic rights jump right out at you, if you have any understanding of your rights, that is - like the right to be heard and the right of appeal on any decision affecting you or your property. There were about four sections that were equally unconstitutional; in fact I'd actually asked the lawyer I hired to get Brindi back to include them all. Would have been easy, using the same brief, he blurted out by accident a few weeks too late. The look on my face must have been the reason he backed slowly out of the room.

Anyhow, I so wished he had done the job I paid him for, because, while section 8(2)(d) isn't there, it looks like the other right-violating sections were transplanted to A-700.

SEVEN YEARS ONE MONTH 25 DAYS

How long has Brindi been locked up? 

From Friday, Sept. 24, 2010 to Sunday, November 22, 2015
Result: 1885 days, or 5 years, 1 month, 29 days

Added to the previous two-year stint, from and including: 
Thursday, July 24, 2008, to Friday, July 9, 2010
Result: 716 days, or 1 year, 11 months, 16 days

A grand total of 2601 days - or, 7 years, 1 month, 25 days.  
She was four when they took her, now she's... oh, you do the math.

Brindi at East Chezzetcook's Long Beach, soon after adoption in summer 2007.
Teeth whiter than white, vibrant and healthy at age 4 after two years in a no-kill shelter.

And to think how in those first July days of unbearable pain, shock, terror, agony at the unthinkable prospect of her spending a week or weeks in that SPCA "shelter". The minute they drove off, immune to my please, it felt like they'd gutted me from top to bottom. Lost ten pounds in seven days, could not eat, sleep, think. Seven years later physically gutted thanks to ovarian cancer... could never even finish restoring my gutted house.

Stay numb. Don't think. Just meet those deadlines... I can't do this.

All for a short-lived mishap in which she ran towards the front yard to check out a possible intruder - a man I never saw before in this tiny community. Started kicking her as soon as she came within reach while he let his dog run off - the dogs never even touched. Stalked off before I could finish a sentence. Had no idea he'd even called HRM until five days later when two men came into my house without a word, then brandished a warrant and took her while I tried in vain to call a lawyer. The man had said he wasn't planning to report it, but then his mom told him some rumours - harmless scuffles became savage attacks. And yet he had to add how surprised he was that she didn't even snap at him when he kicked her head and stomach over and over, as I begged him to stop.


HRM's Animal Services people must have thought, "Hey, perfect candidate to try out our brand new by-law, A-300, let's us seize & kill at will!" They went one step further by not bothering to get my side of the story, let alone talk to a true eyewitness... So no proper investigation. And they'd already set it up by issuing a muzzle order for Brindi - exploiting a dog owner's request not to fine me for a similar scuffle a month earlier, because I was nice enough to offer to cover a vet to check it over and she promptly ran up a bill of $143, covering a full check-up and a second visit. I'd forgotten all about what happened weeks before that, when she and her dog passed on the road and her dog began lunging and barking uncontrollably. Brindi remained a perfect lady, sitting obediently at my feet. She was, is, such a good dog, so loving, so eager to please, and after a year of diligent training, pretty darn reliable off-leash. But dog's don't forget: provocation then, provocation later, when she saw that pair coming towards our house. 

Last photo of Brindi I have, taken by a vet tech in 2012, age 9.
After just 6 months in the pound, her teeth and gums were 
already rotting, chronic pancreatitis setting in. 
The minute a judge turned over Brindi and her fate to 
the city in 2012, the prosecutor cut off the bi-monthly
visits - which I'd paid for, totalling $2000 - glibly 
remarking, "Brindi's not sick. She doesn't need to see the vet."

To point out such things did nothing but allow the city lawyers to chant, "See, your Lordship, proof Ms. Rogier still doesn't take it seriously! She's unwilling and unable to comply!"

Sigh. HRM's lawyers are good, all right. Good at twisting words and truth, at recasting simple scuffles as near fatalities! Of course they have help, like the unfriendly lady across the street. Out here, most folks wave at every passing car; this one hadn't once said hi since I'd moved. Much later, under oath, she did admit she hadn't actually seen anything. But thanks to her, the official docs still say Java "yelped" while Brindi was "on her back" and the man had to kick her in order to pry her off. 

Not what he, I, or that eyewitness, or even that judge said - but why let the facts get in the way of victory?? They've embellished and twisted everything - nearly tripling the vet bill to $363 (and it's in evidence!). They even got the judge to mistakenly assume I took her to obedience class "due to behavioural problems". In reality, I'd taught her the basics in a few weeks; we took the class simply to advance - to make her the best dog she could be so we could go anywhere, do anything, like my dearly departed Howard and me. 

When I called that woman asking for help after the city took Brindi again, she refused, and told me "Why don't you just go get another dog at the shelter?" Seems that's what she did - at least, I never saw her dog again.

"The Belly of the Architect": The Big C Pre-Empts Everything from Court to Construction

 It's been nearly half a year since I posted anything here, and probably for the best, since it's been a pretty hellish time and it's unclear how things will go from here.

First of all, the winter, which got fully underway by February and peaked with the big blizzard on March 19, was uniquely horrible. Never experienced anything like it in my life. Thick sheets of ice covered the driveway and parts of the lawn from February to late March. Salt was useless. Even now, nearly the end of May, it's still chilly and gray most days. 

Along the way, my plumbing went out for a few weeks at a time - and this happened more than once. Just after I got that under control, on March 5 as I brought in the groceries, my feet shot out from under me suddenly. I fell back into open space, my head eventually bouncing off the ice with a loud crack. Concussion, with all the usual earmarks - nausea, headaches, etc.

Then I began noticing that my belly would cramp up a few minutes after tossing a few shovelfuls of snow around - which I did just to clear a little around the car. (Otherwise I was happy to leave it where it was for the most part; this snow was frozen and extremely heavy, not worth breaking your back for).

Sometime in the past four months, well before this news, but in no less of a dark depression, I posted in the Brindi Activists group on Facebook as if in some sort of trance, "One of us is going to die soon." I can't explain what I was thinking. It didn't come from my brain, it came to it, somehow.

By late March I had been to the doctors and even the ER a few times with pain and other disquieting symptoms, including a lot more chronic fatigue than I usually have. An ultrasound right after Easter brought the alarming news of a sizable tumor that stunned the doctors as much as it did me. It was followed by a blood test that strongly indicated malignancy. By that time I had done a little research and figured it out myself, albeit it an uncommitted sort of way.

I have ovarian cancer. Yup, that's me. The fifth leading cause of cancer deaths, it's particularly deadly because unlike breast cancer, it evades early detection. And by now my tumor, which is where my ovaries once were, is about the size of a grapefruit according to the last scan.

Merry Christmas, seventh time around: Halifax says no to mediation

Pope Francis did a great thing earlier today - he basically said dogs go to heaven. Surpringly causing a sensation. Where else would dogs go?

It's final. Sadly.

HRM will not agree to enter into mediation with me in order to resolve Brindi's case sooner rather than later - in other words, before she dies in the kennel.

I put the offer of mediation to HRM at the end of October through a local lawyer who was willing to represent me for that purpose pro bono. This was not too long after I filed notice of a second appeal.

I didn't know mediation was even possible until them. I just happened to notice  saw online that the Supreme Court was offering a new, free, court-sponsored mediation program as an alternative to appeals. I found the lawyer's name on a list provided by the court.

Dismayingly consistent with its history of refusing to cooperate in any way, regardless of cost, merit, etc., Halifax said no.

Nightmares

This hurts so much to read and even more to look at. 

After being locked up in the SPCA's 30-day facility for nearly 2 years, and two months in Homeward Bound's Burnside facility which was even worse, Brindi had nightmares for over two months. 

Just when they began to stop, HRM seized her a second time. And my nightmares and hers began all over again and haven't stopped since.

In need of rescue: NS SPCA must man up and do its duty for Brindi, the dog they say they love

 If you are new to this case, thank you for your interest! For background, please see the 2012  Montreal Dog Blog interview. This case differs from most "dangerous dog" cases and may be confusing. But it is important to know for those concerned about animal control laws and enforcement in North America, as it lays bare core issues common to animal control cases. Thank you.

A call out to all who care about Brindi: 
Please help with the effort to persuade the local SPCA to intervene by using its legal authority to protect animal welfare to take her from the control of the city and place her in a safe, healthy home that abides by all court conditions. 
Asking the SPCA to intervene is one way the public can help. It has the greatest potential for getting Brindi to safety.

Here is how it works. 

No man's land: Appeal denied, open-ended law upheld, HRM gets back power struck down in 2008

Not only does the appeal decision of July 11, 2014 mean HRM can go ahead and do what decided to do in 2008 - namely, kill Brindi. It means it can and will do this in secrecy. And in the end, the decision is very likely to mean HRM seize, detain, and kill any other dog unimpeded: it virtually restores the power HRM gave itself in By-Law A-300 the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2009 - in the case I brought against HRM.  
(see HRM's DILEMMA, below; click "read more")

Humane Halifax: After 6-year battle to kill Brindi, HRM keeps mum / NS SPCA called on to protect dog's life

 HUMANE HALIFAX PRESS RELEASE AUGUST 12, 2014
HRM secretive about plans for Brindi / Humane Halifax asks NS SPCA to investigate neglect abuse of all seized dogs at municipal pound  

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 
(Dartmouth Aug. 12, 2014 4:00 ATL): In a recent email to Brindi's owner, HRM prosecutor Katherine Salsman tightened a cloak of secrecy around the municipality’s longtime ward, the dog Brindi, claiming there is no “final decision” on the dog’s future (see email below).

Activists Appeal to Nova Scotia SPCA: Please act to secure Brindi from wrongful death

Carol Waterman, Animal Activist, Montreal 

From: Carol Waterman
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:27:38 -0400
To: Elizabeth Murphy emurphy@spcans.ca
Cc: David Ross ;dross@spcans.ca, Sandra Flemming sflemming@spcans.ca, Board of Directors ;animals@spcans.ca
Subject: EXTREMELY URGENT ! BOARD OF DIRECTORS & SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM - PLEASE SAVE BRINDI FROM DEATH

July 14, 2014

Good Afternoon,

After many years of fighting to save an innocent dog Brindi from death, today I received horrific news that HRM, Halifax has been given the green light to kill her.   As an animal advocate & animal lover in Montreal, QC, I find this to be totally unjust.

Concerned Canadians tell Halifax: Don't kill Brindi - I will gladly adopt her!

A number of Brindi supporters across Canada have come forward to adopt Brindi. Here is one from British Columbia. 

From: Lana Horan, British Columbia
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:30:52 -0700
To: savagem@halifax.ca, Macdonaa@halifax.ca
Cc: newsroom@herald.ca,halifax@metronews.ca, coast@thecoast.ca, info@newspapersatlantic.ca
Subject: Brindi

Dear Mr. Savage and Ms. MacDonald,

My husband and I are putting in a request to adopt Brindi. I know she's had a hard life being locked up for 6 years and we are convinced that Brindi would have a wonderful place to live out her last few years here with us in beautiful British Columbia.

We live on 20 acres and have a completely fenced yard (approx. an acre) with the 6' fence buried 6" so no exit is possible. We have a dog door for freedom of yard or house. We are semi-retired, so someone is usually home. Brindi would get lots of attention.

Exactly Why Did You Seize My Dog? Analyzing the Testimony of Animal Control Officer Valerie Rodger

Note: contrary to popular local belief, an alleged muzzle order violation is not in and of itself grounds to seize a dog!!!!

Analysis of Testimony Prepared for Summary Conviction Appeal, May 29, 2014

Not submitted to court for appeal, due to restrictions on the length of submissions. 
(To be honest, it seemed doubtful the "court" even read what I did submit... )

Schedule F: Testimony of Animal Control Officer Valerie Rodger

1.    The indirect testimony of AC officer Valerie Rodger is illustrative of the problematic exercise of discretion on the part of the Respondent. It supports the Applicant’s position that the Respondent lacked sufficiently compelling reasons to provide reasonable grounds to seize Brindi. This in turn supports the that the judge erred in law by failing to reach this conclusion when reviewing the Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss the Charges or Stay Proceedings and allow the motion.

2.    At the outset, the AC officer gives incorrect information about her years on the job. She tells the prosecutor she was hired three years before the trial. The next time it comes up, she claims – falsely – Brindi was the first dog she had ever seized “in five years” on the job (presumedly to emphasize just how amiss of the law the Appellant was by violating a muzzle order). In truth, as detailed below, she was hired in 2009. This means that she was actually only in her first year when she seized Brindi in 2010.

3.    In response to a direct question about why she decided to seize Brindi, Rodger gives a series of contradictory answers.

4.    The AC officer at first appears reluctant to admit knowledge of the details of any attacks beyond using blanket terms about attacks and offences. Further questioning reveals her to be very familiar with the details of prior incidents dating back several years, although they predate her employment.  

5.    Further questioning supports the Appellant's position that the grounds for seizing Brindi had less to do with public safety concerns and more to do with a desire to punish infractions above and beyond the law's provision of fines. Illustrative of this desire is the witness' erroneous reference to "two muzzle orders" is illustrative.

6.    Overall, AC officer Valerie Rodger was unable to state a valid reason for seizing and destroying Brindi and changed the reason she gave several times over the course of her testimony.

Details:

7.            Questions arise regarding Rodger's credibility: she says in direct testimony (Transcript p. 166, “I have been employed with HRM Animal Services for almost three years now.” This is consistent with her affidavit, which states she was hired in 2009. 

However, during indirect testimony, Rodger says she has been on the job for five years:

Q. How often have you done it personally and how long have you worked in this capacity? 

A. As an Animal Enforcement Officer, almost five years, and very fortunately I have never had a reason to have to seize a dog before.

The AC officer repeats the last statement a few times, though it is plainly untrue, as in 2010, the year of the incident in question, she would have been on the job only about one year. This discrepancy greatly lessens the impact of her claim that Brindi was the first dog she had ever seized. The issue of credibility becomes more worrisome when the AC officer goes on to give contradictory answers to questions about her decision to seize Brindi.

8.              Rodger's statements regarding this decision confirm the presence of a significant lack of differentiation in exercising her discretion. The following are relevant passages from indirect testimony. 

At the outset Rodger appears to confuse what the law requires with actions that involve the exercise of discretion permitted by law:

p. 197-198: on exercise of discretion vs. enforcing the law

Q. ...[so] you're saying your job is to enforce the law when there is a number of incidents and not to distinguish necessarily the severity of it.

A. I enforce the law. I'll enforce the law regardless of the incident.    

Q. Regardless of the incident. So if there were ...

A. However many incidents. If there is only one attack, the law is enforced. If there is three attacks, the law is enforced. In terms of why I deemed the dog to be a danger to the public to needing to be seized is not on the basis of one attack, but on a continued history of aggression towards other dogs     

Q. Right.   

A. ... and your unwillingness or inability to keep your dog under control.

p. 211: refers to more than one muzzle order

A. An attack causing injury in spite of multiple muzzle orders, yes, I felt that there was a danger to anybody walking their dog past your property as long as Brindi was in your custody.

p. 213: appears to contradict emphasis on the muzzle order as a factor in the decision to seize

A. And if I could just clarify she made a comment that the... it was mainly about the muzzle order, it wasn't. The reason Brindi was seized was about the attack.

214-215: shows poor understanding of criteria and her role as decision-maker:

A. Okay, you say there is no criteria for a muzzle order, but there is. In the case that a dog attacks an officer may take one of several actions including imposing a muzzle order.

217: explicitly rejects consideration of severity in favor of undifferentiated record:

A. Regardless of why Brindi is attacking, the motivations 18 behind it, the level of attacks, the bottom line is there has been 19 a repeated history of attacks by Brindi. And it is not safe for 20 somebody to walk their dog past your residence as long as Brindi is in your custody.

218: with regard to weighing “running at large” charges in the decision to seize

A. It doesn't matter how far off the property it is. 17

Q. Just as a matter of interest what would be the, you know, 18 how far in this history are you aware of ... 19

A. It's on the road. It's on the roadway, how far off your property each of these incidents occur doesn't really matter.

219: appears to disregard or not know of the presence and severity of any harm

A.    I don't know the details of the injuries in all the previous 10 attacks.

Q. At the time that you decided to make a determination to 13 seize Brindi, did you review the case files in detail?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. So you came away with the impression of two, more than two 16 injuries maybe, or less than two, or can you pinpoint that at all?

A. You know what, I don't recall what the injuries were in the first three attacks. (note: there was only one prior injury, a shallow puncture similar to the one Lucy sustained, but on the dog’s chest instead of her back)

p. 225: contradictorily claims that the presence or severity of harm is taken into consideration

A. Yes, severity of the attack is one of the things that is 4 taken into consideration when using my discretion.

Q. How is it taken ... how do you take it into consideration?

A. The more severe attack warrants more serious intervention.

p. 225: appears to have knowledge of details after implying she was not familiar with them

MS. ROGIER: Okay. In your report you stated that there was 9 one puncture wound and two scratches, is that correct?

A. Two abrasions, probably.

Q. Two abrasions.

A. Yeah.   

Q. Okay, so and you consider that the attacks had escalated? That they had gone up in severity, correct?   

A. From the beginning, yes, I thought it was.

p. 225-226: confirms absence of severe harm and lack of immediate treatment

Q. Did the dog go to the emergency vet hospital that evening, like immediately after ...   

A. No, it received vet care the next day.   

Q. Okay. So presumably it wasn't life-threatening, the injury then?

A. No. 2

Q. Okay, did the dog require stitches. You said no.   

A. I am sure it's on the vet report.   

Q. Okay. I was trying to find a photograph for you to identify.   I assume you have seen photographs of the injuries?   

A. Of the injuries to the dog, yes.   

p. 227: confirms extent of injury is two abrasions and a shallow puncture, in photo, no bigger than a man’s fingernail (not willing to agree that it is actually smaller)

Q. Okay, can you describe how large it is in comparison to 9 the person's hand and fingers? 10

A. It's about a size of the fingernail.   

Q. I see ... well, do you think so, really?   

A. I would say that, yes, that is about the size of a fingernail.   

Q. There is a fingernail right here.   

A. Yeah, yeah.   

Q. And that, I would submit, is smaller.   

A. The red spot is smaller but the entire injury where there is fur missing is larger (that makes no sense – she is referring to the shaved skin!)

236: third contradiction; also “fact” pre-empts investigation or ruling  

A. Whether or not the injuries were life threatening, the fact was there was yet another attack on a dog going past your property.

9.             And finally, the witness makes plain the lack of a consistent standard or policy regarding seizures and protection of public safety:

p. 239-240: establishes inconsistent or contrasting decisions regarding other cases

Q. To your knowledge, have there been worse injuries that did not result in seizures?

A. Yes.

Q. Had there been fatalities that did not result in seizures to your knowledge?   

A. Probably.   

Q. Probably?   

A. Actually, yeah, no, I can actually definitely say yes, there have.   

Q. There have been.

A. There has not been another case with such a history of attacks in spite of muzzle orders.

Q. Okay, well, we are going to leave that aside right now. I am asking about severity. In terms of fatalities, did these involve another dog?

A. Yes.

Q. And did they ... or did they involve a cat or another kind of animal

A. I am sure that there are some that involved, yeah, other animals.

Q. And were those dogs typically muzzled then?  

A. It depends on the specifics of each case.

10.          It is submitted that taken as a whole, the witness’s statements are not reflective of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Most people would reasonably expect animal services to seize a dog that had killed another dog. And, if they do not, they would then view it as setting a standard, and thus reasonably expect animal services not to seize a dog unless it had killed or at least severely harmed a dog.

11.          But the picture the AC officer presents, and mirrored in this case, does not meet such expectations. Nor does it represent the word of the law to the letter.  

12.          The cross-examination confirms the lack of severe injury based on the photographs of two minor abrasions and a small puncture wound smaller than a man’s fingernail. Other evidence showed these wounds were discovered belatedly, after the owners called the police, so they could not have been bleeding very much. This testimony confirms the officer’s awareness that the dog required no emergency care, merely simple first aid.

13.          It becomes clear from the AC officer’s testimony that there was really no compelling reason to obtain a warrant to seize Brindi. In any case she is unable to plainly and simply give a reason, shifting back and forth instead between the muzzle order, the owner’s past sins, and the attack, while admitting that she gave no details of the attacks to the justice of the peace in her ITO for the warrant.

14.          It is also becomes clear that the AC officer was very likely aware of the lack of a compelling reason to seize and destroy, and cognizant of the drastic impact seizure and detention would have on Brindi, but seized her anyway. Her somewhat obstructive answers and defensive posture suggest that the matter is not about public safety but punishment, perhaps more.

15.          By the conclusion of her testimony it is established that in the ITO she did not provide the justice of the peace many pertinent details regarding the attacks, especially regarding severity. Rodger did not include the details of injuries in her ITO. In contrast, she paraphrased the dispatch calls at length, with a clear bias. She exaggerates and builds on a false impression created by reference to number of attacks. This appears to lend credence to the suggestion that the warrant is necessary to prevent the Appellant from leaving the jurisdiction. The ITO presupposes not only that there are grounds for destroying Brindi, but also that preventing a person from leaving the jurisdiction is sufficient grounds for seizure. While the second clearly exceeds the scope of the by-law, the outcome of the proceedings has shown that the first is patently untrue.

16.          Rodger also appears to lie on the stand because she initially says she did review the details, yet cannot recall them. But she quickly confirms details as put to her, such as injuries, or lack thereof, and then again reverts to saying she outlined the history for the JP, when it is pointed out that she excluded relevant information needed by the JP to make an informed decision on the risk of safety and the decision to seize.

17.          On p. 230, she avoids a yes/no question about pressing need for treatment, which refutes her answer that the injuries required treatment. Taking a dog to the vet does not prove that it required veterinary care. On p. 232, the discussion about registering a dog as dangerous reflects the circular muzzle order/dangerous connection.

18.          Yet Rodger admits without hesitation that the animal services department does not necessarily seize, muzzle order destroy even in cases of fatality to animals. This implies a lack of a consistent rational decision-making and/or policy guidelines. The evidence also demonstrates the inconsistency of enforcement, which weakens the Respondent’s case.

19.          Without the presence of the muzzle order, it seems the 2010 incident more than likely would have been handled very differently. It is fair to say, based on the record,[1] that the muzzle was arbitrarily imposed, or the first seizure, which relied on the muzzle order, did not follow an injury incident, and failed to provide grounds for an order to destroy.

20.          Taken as a whole, this evidence credibly establishes the lack of reasonable cause to seize and detain Brindi, or to seek an order to destroy. The dispatch calls admittedly may not reflect very well on the Appellant, but they are an inadequate substitute for proof of severe harm or deliberate non-compliance or recklessness. This evidence thus arguably constitutes sufficient grounds to quash the warrant or at least to release Brindi by court order pending the outcome of the trial. The motion to dismiss the charges also relied in large part on these grounds.

21.          Therefore, the judge errs in law by failing to come to this conclusion and apply as grounds to release Brindi and grant the motion to dismiss the charges. Part of the problem may be that the judge relied on the AC officer’s answer on p. 252 regarding incidents prior to the muzzle order, which says that a violation charge was laid, which is not true. However, if it were true, a charge is not necessarily sufficient to tip the balance against the rest of the evidence or lack thereof.

22.          It seems likely that Rodger was simply following orders from a supervisor, Lori Scolaro. Rodger was a recent hire. HRM records show another officer, Leah Parsons, was originally assigned the case and Scolaro reassigned it to Rodger. (Scolaro made a similar reassignment in 2008, substituting Tim Hamm for Brad Kelly after Kelly was already dispatched.)

23.          Thus it appears more than likely that in carrying out her supervisor’s instructions to the decision to seize and detain Brindi, Rodger failed to properly exercise her statutory discretion. The action does not reflect a reasonable balance of interests or fact, e.g., her knowledge of the total lack of severe harm in previous incidents, and in the incident in question, against the certain negative effects of further impoundment to the dog’s health. This failure to properly exercise discretion is especially eggregious as the law does not mandate the seizure and destruction of dangerous dogs.

24.          The definitions of terms such as dangerous and attack, and the absence of a definition of bite, in s.2 of A-300 means the law cannot provide adequate guidance to decision-makers. The effect of these definitions is to render the law overbroad. It fails to distinguish severity of bites, and makes no distinction between canine aggression toward humans and animals, or between perceived displays of aggression and the perceived threat of aggression. Therefore Ms. Rodger lacked proper guidance in exercising her discretion to decide to seize Brindi.

The gap between canine science and the law

25.          One of the key areas where the by-law definition diverges considerably from veterinary science is the lack of differentiation in the target of aggression. A reliable and comprehensive source of information on veterinary medicine and animal behavior is the Merck Veterinary Manual [“Manual”].   

The Manual explains that dominance aggression is an "abnormal, inappropriate, out-of- context aggression (threat, challenge, or attack) consistently exhibited by dogs toward people under any circumstances involving passive or active control of the dog’s behavior or the dog’s access to the behavior."97 Notably, the Manual states that dominance aggression is difficult to diagnose due to "human misunderstanding of canine social systems, canine signaling, and canine anxieties associated with endogeneous uncertainty about contextually appropriate responses.

26.          Importantly, in contrast to the views of HRM by-law enforcement, the Manual emphasizes that some aggressive dog behaviors are normal, and even desirable by humans.

27.          Another key point of divergence is the lack of recognition of “good bite inhibition” that is displayed over time. While the Manual stresses that unwanted behavior must be “consistently” exhibited in order to be deemed aggression, behavior expert Dr. Ian Dunbar stresses that a one-time display of aggression that involves life-threatening or fatal injury to a human or animal is a greater concern than an animal that displays aggression multiple times but shows restraint, i.e., “bite inhibition.”

28.          It is submitted that a rule of thumb based on the number of “attacks” or “at large” incidents irrespective of the degree of harm or other factors is frivolous if not abusive as grounds for seizing and detaining companion dogs that are living personal property. The rigid “one-bite rule” where dogs are deemed dangerous and often destroyed on the basis of a single incident, typically undifferentiated as to severity (other than perhaps the target, which is not done here), is just as problematic as applying the “first-time offender” rationale, which is borrowed from criminal law, to be lenient even when there is fatal or near-fatal injury. 

29.          The “first-time offender” rationale seems to be a common rule of thumb (confirmed in Rodger’s testimony) among HRM animal services staff and prosecutors. But Dunbar shows that such “first-time” dogs that run at large, attack, inflict severe harm, and even kill (e.g., kittens, chickens in a neighbor’s yard, etc.) actually pose a greater threat, so that the practice of fining rather than muzzling or seizing such dogs exposes the public to unacceptably high risk. At the same time, seizing and punishing with death dogs that run at large more than once, or scuffle with other dogs but consistently refrain from inflicting severe injury (requiring stitches, drainage tubes, etc.), based on the number of reported incidents alone, is unfair and inhumane. In both instances, the basis of the decision is erroneous, and the odds are that the duty to protect public safety is not met to any acceptable level.

30.          But there is only hope of improvement if Animal Services is willing to expand and update its understanding of dog behavior and take a hard look at its system.

---

[1] See email exchange between Bernie Jo Villeaux and AC Officer Tim Hamm, documented also in Applicant’s Brief from Dec. 31, 2009:

“The decision-maker cannot rely on the prior determination of the dog as being subject to a Muzzle Order because:

(a) on issuing the Muzzle Order on May 2, 2008, an Animal Control Officer “...informed her I was not deeming her dog as “dangerous” as this would include additional safeguards. Ms. Rogier was happy to hear this...” [Original Record, Tab 7, Record Page 3, under “Comments”]

(b) the Muzzle Order was not issued for any reason related to a deeming of the dog to be dangerous. The complainant reported by email to Animal Control Officer on May 1, 2008, that “...I don’t want this woman fined!!!” because she had learned the prospect of a fine could jeopardize the payment of a veterinary account by the Applicant. [Original Record, Tab 7, Record Page 13-14]

(c) The Muzzle Order was issued on consultation with and as a result of a form of negotiation with a complaining third party, without notice to the Applicant and without affording the Applicant the opportunity to respond, but for which, the disposition of the Animal Control Officer was to charge her with an offence and seek a fine: on May 2, 2005 Animal Control Officer emails the Complainant, “...Please let me know how you feel about this option” [Original Record, Tab 7, Record Page 9]. The Order in the result was a fettering of any discretion of the Officer and the decision was arbitrary and discriminatory.” (Mitchell, Applicant’s Brief 2008 p. 22, in Appendix A)