In one, the charges were dismissed by the judge, who said the city had insufficient evidence. The owner of a dog who was attacked by the offending dog was present and testified. Normally, that is the only sort of evidence available, barring photos of injuries or vet bills.
In a second case, the city dropped one of the charges, and the owner was fined. It involved running at large and attacking an animal.
In a third, heard in the Halifax court on the 23rd of October, the dog in question was not registered. It was charged with running at large, being unlicenses, and attacking an animal.
This apparently 10 year old dog, no breed indicated, escaped from the man's control while it was being put out on a lead in the backyard, according to the man. He said it ran off because it had spotted a kitten in the neighbor's yard. It then ran into their yard, grabbed the kitten, and shook it hard several times. The kitten died a few days later from the injuries. I.e., a fatal attack. Blood, guts, gore. Bona fide.
The man who testified in court claimed the dog was his wife's pet, not his. His wife was not in court. This factor seemed to reduce the harshness of the way the city handled it, although it's hard to see why.
HRM lawyer Kishan Persaud asked the judge for two things: first, an order for the man to register his dog. Since it's a law that you must license your dog in HRM, it's a redundant request; the judge looked a bit perplexed at this. Second, Persaud said the city wanted to impose a fine of $300. That was it. He based this on the idea that the dog had never been reported before. The fees and costs would make it $500, replied the judge. The owner of the kitten was not present.
And that was that.
Humane Halifax notified the press ahead of these cases, but no media reporters were present.
No info was given about breeds for any of the dogs.
You can find a few more details about these cases here. Numbers 8978, 8982, and 8760. The latter is the one with the fatal injuries.
What is just? Well, couldn't the city at least ask the owners to build a fence around their yard?? Otherwise, how can Persaud support his decision in terms of maintaining public safety? The law does not make any provision for "prior records".
Under A300, any dog that attacks or threatens to attack is considered dangerous dog.
This raises some instant questions. To begin with, to follow A300, isn't any case with a guilty conviction on "attacking" a candidate for a dangerous dog designation?
Yet of 60 plus cases where dogs are convicted of attacking, how many are deemed dangerous, muzzled, seized, euthanized?? One or two, max.
And how do these cases compare to the other cases??? One involved worse attacks than the average, although no killing. The other - well, it doesn't even compare to the rest. You can guess which one that is.
This is not to say that HRM should be seeking death to all these other dogs as it is for Brindi. In no way should anybody be fully applying a by-law that is so sweeping and so flawed, we think. That may be why it usually doesn't do it. But how can it justify singling out Brindi, and leave others untouched??
There is no doubt that a dog that kills another animal is a serious issue. It is a proven killer, rather than a hypothetical one - that might hurt a child, might kill another pet. Then the fines. There seems to be an unseen scale used with them: some people must pay $222 for not having their dog registered. Others pay $300 even though they plead guilty to three separate charges; the fines should in fact total $666.
Is this what HRM really considers good animal control?? Or is the city in danger of "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute"?
Meanwhile, Brindi's owner and her lawyer were turned down twice by provincial court judges when they brought an application of abuse of process before the court. Pretty much the same thing happened to their application to get the dog released now, as the city has no real legal basis to keep holding her and may never have had it. In violation of the Summary Proceedings Act. The city blocked Brindi's owner from the chance to even present the case to a judge - using a lame tactic of a last-minute adjournment request, which was argued using the argument it would have used during a real hearing.
It seems the latest judge says that she has no authority to even get Brindi moved to a better facility than the Metro Shelter (a short-term stay facility...). Evidently, she has the power to order Brindi killed, but she can't order her to be transferred.
A travesty? You decide.
So other dogs can kill and never be taken from their owners, whose finds will put them out a pittance by comparison to some other owners... HRM is not ashamed to let the world see that it is intent on wiping out one financially and emotionally, and in order to do it, it is even prepared to break the law and a lot of its own rules, not to mention court rules. Dogs that kill? Oh, well, it's their first time... ??
And the SPCA? Well, they are happy as clams and again busy raiding a backyard breeder.
We have no independent confirmation is available to check out what conditions the SPCA said the animals were in. Experience tells us that an independent confirmation is a good idea in such cases.
More on that to come.
