From a facebook post and an in-depth answer to it:
"Unfortunately Brindi's owner proved herself to be an irresponsible owner by not keeping her muzzled and in her yard as was suppose to be done, she was also given three chances to correct that problem."
This is not quite true, and sadly, it is one of the pesky annoying things about this case that makes it hard to convey in a nutshell!!!
This is not quite true, and sadly, it is one of the pesky annoying things about this case that makes it hard to convey in a nutshell!!!
The "chances" are as follows (and yes, there were two unreported mishaps but they are NOT official "chances" and the other dog owners and dogs were not entirely innocent in the matter, as they admitted in court recently!):
1. a report was filed - no injuries and charges laid, Aug. 07 (although the owner now says, a year and a half later, that there were injuries, at the time, she and Brindi's owner examined it together saw nothing; afterwards she admits she did not take her dog to the vet).
2. a second report was filed in April 08: minor injury (one tooth puncture) - Brindi's owner was told she would be charged, which could lead to a fine. The AC officer returned a week later however and announced the muzzle order. He did not reveal that the other dog owner had requested specifically that he NOT go ahead with his first decision to lay a charge. She did this because she was concerned the Brindi's owner, if fined, would not be able to pay the vet bill that she had volunteered to cover ($143).
The truth was not known until after Brindi was seized -
3. July 2008, a report was filed after another short-lived incident. Brindi had escaped without her muzzle, accidentally, when she sensed a dog being walked in front of her house.
There is no evidence that Brindi actually attacked the other dog, according to a statement by a judge on Feb. 3. It is not disputed that Brindi ran to the edge of her property, but it is not clear what happened in the next seconds. There is no vet bill or photo documenting a bite, and no impartial witness saw her bite a dog, which only the dog's owner's son (who was walking it) - claims Brindi bit his dog. However, there was witness testimony that this man had started kicking Brindi almost immediately after she ran to the edge of her property, and he continued to kick her until a driver passed by and honked his horn, causing everybody to scatter. The driver left his car in the road and was able to get Brindi's collar without any trouble, and pass her over to her owner, who sent her right home (50 feet away), where she waited obediently at the front door. The other man left before Brindi's owner could even get his name, let alone apologize.
Brindi's owner was not charged for this incident at the time of seizure, which happened four days later, without notice. There is no appeal process in the system. Thus, she had no other way to stop the killing than to file a lawsuit; then she went to court to challenge the by-law for not giving her due process and to let her dog go.
The owner is a single woman who had recently moved into a rural village inhabited by longtime residents. She offered to make amends, and sought advice for how to improve Brindi's behavior at every instance. Brindi was otherwise extremely well-behaved around people and dogs and children. She is a rescue dog who seems to have some kind of trigger from her past.
- There is no law or written policy anywhere that dictates that a muzzle order violation must lead directly to the destruction of an animal. Yet Animal Control insists to this day that that is what they ALWAYS do. They have even claimed that they were forced to issue a kill order, even though the law gives the officers full discretion at any and every juncture.
It seems to us that since July 2008, Brindi's owner has been caught in a web of bureaucracy and conspiracy that even seems to include the attorney she hired to quash the by-law and get her dog back home. He left the last part undone and turned around and sued her for tens of thousands of dollars - a huge fee that is five times the original estimate!!
All of the incidents lasted less than a minute, some no more than 20 seconds.
Halifax lost to Brindi's owner in the supreme court of Nova Scotia in that by-law case over a year ago. Now all HRM dogs are protected from this fate.
However, the court left open what the city believed to be a loophole: while it quashed the euthanization order, it did not address the fundamental request to release Brindi to her owner - the whole purpose of the case. Halifax immediately charged Brindi's owner with the first charges ever, only one hour before the time limit ran out (six months). It continued to keep Brindi, insisting she was dangerous - although the city has never designated her as such in its own registry. And, though the warrant relied in part on a provincial law allowing seizures of animals believed dangerous, it stops there: it says nothing about what happens next. What happens after seizure is that a local law must kick in to determine what is to be done with the seized (property) animal.
The problem for Halifax that there simply is NO LAW in the land that allows a city to hold a dog indefinitely without any euthanization order in hand.*
Now that the city of Halifax's hired gun prosecutor has gotten guilty verdicts against the owner, a sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 9. The usual practice is to automatically charge an owner fines and leave it at that. That is what the by-law A300 stipulates. But Halifax's powerful people are not interested in fines, they only want the dog to be killed. The city animal services department ignored the owner's initial and continued offers to build a fence around her property to avoid mishaps, and to proceed with special training while observing the muzzle order. Instead the city's lawyer's - and fans of the defensive SPCA - have painted her as some kind of outlaw! Animal Services, realizing that the supreme court justice left the door open to them, laid charges at the last minute only in order to get a new kill order.
When asked months afterwards why he did not lay charges before, the AC officer answers (quite incredibly) that he "felt sorry" for the woman and did not want to cause her further distress with a fine!!! This is the same man who opted for the muzzle order instead of the fine at the drop of a hat, all it took was another dog owner to ask him not to lay a fine!
There is a bad risk that, in response to all the protests about its inhumane treatment, the city may now seek to give Brindi to a trainer to be kept in a cage for the rest of her life.
Either outcome would set a very dangerous precedent that we find very troubling as dog owners.
Brindi has never seriously harmed another dog, nor has she attacked or bitten a human, or even been known to growl at one!!
Brindi has never seriously harmed another dog, nor has she attacked or bitten a human, or even been known to growl at one!!
So basically... after the muzzle order was in place, Brindi's owner was given no real chances.
Brindi - now a beloved fixture at the SPCA's pound - was seized the very next time somebody called animal control. Ironically, they told the city the main reason they called was because they heard things (rumours) about this dog rather than the event itself. The man also said clearly that at no time did Brindi try to nip or bite him despite the fact that he repeatedly kicked at her head and stomach!
And after the the tragic seizure, Brindi's owner was given no due process to be able to plead for her life. In fact, despite massive efforts and cost, she has had no real due process till this day.
Laying charges is not a form of granting due process. The charges are laid against a human; they are a separate matter from killing a dog because the city thinks it is dangerous. But in this matter, Halifax has inextricably linked the two. It's a very dangerous move!
While using the charges to get to a judge to ask for a euthanization order may be the only current option available to Halifax at the moment (a big gap in the system that concerns us), Halifax could have acted quite differently at any time. When a Supreme Court judge says that no due process was given or exists, a city should consider options such as creating a special appeals board or tribunal where the owner can seek to overturn a kill order - without the major life-threatening expense of hiring a lawyer and going to court themselves, while their dog languishes in a pound.
Please, above all, do not get the false impression that Halifax is incredibly rigorous about enforcing the by-law and admire it for that: on the contrary!!! There are numerous cases of dogs biting people - badly too, and multiple cases known involving four dogs - in which the dogs were not seized and in more than a few cases, the owners were never charged.
Please, above all, do not get the false impression that Halifax is incredibly rigorous about enforcing the by-law and admire it for that: on the contrary!!! There are numerous cases of dogs biting people - badly too, and multiple cases known involving four dogs - in which the dogs were not seized and in more than a few cases, the owners were never charged.
What is true is that animal control in Halifax is practiced unevenly and arbitrarily, and that many dogs continue to terrorize their neighborhoods.
In order to avoid setting a bad precedent, we believe it is imperative that Halifax be content with 3 guilty verdicts, which it rarely gets in other cases, and drop its bid to kill Brindi before March 9's sentencing hearing, so this dog can go back to its owner where she will receive the best health care and training, and finally recover from this ordeal together with her human!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Provincial law in Nova Scotia gives these matters over to the municipalities, after providing a means of seizing an animal. However, once a guilty verdict is reached on a municipal law violation, the province comes back and gives the cities a neat way to get a judge add euthanization (or anything they want) as an "additional penalty", something we find equally incomprehensible and reprehensible:
