BRINDI MYTH - BRINDI FACT

One click!

 For more info on other Halifax dog cases from January 2007 to November 2009, see By-Law Prosecutions, extracted from documents on all types of by-law violations, posted on halifax.ca. Updates are made whenever the city releases new files. 

(To obtain more details about the cases, one must appear in person and request files case by case. We have done this on a few occasions so far.) 

Here is a little extract from the extract: 

A COMMON BRINDI QUESTION: "Something doesn't add up here!"

A very astute observation. Yes, something does NOT add up...

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!!!

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!!

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. 

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!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

* In fact, we wonder if this fact might present another problem for Halifax, as now there is a pit bull in custody for over seven months now, without a valid euthanization order! That dog is accused of biting two humans, but like Brindi, it was not declared dangerous. Even if it had been, the fact is that declaring a dog dangerous does NOT automatically allow it to be impounded or killed, since Halifax gives licenses out to "dangerous dogs". 


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: 

Additional penalty

177 At the trial of a charge laid against the owner of a dog that is fierce or dangerous, that persistently disturbs the quiet of a neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise or that runs at large, contrary to a by-law, in addition to the penalty, the judge may order that the

(a) dog be destroyed or otherwise dealt with; and

(b) owner pay any costs incurred by the municipality related to the dog, including costs related to the seizure, impounding, or destruction of the dog,

and it is not necessary to prove that the

(c) dog previously attacked or injured a domestic animal, person or property;

(d) dog had a propensity to injure or to damage a domestic animal, person or property; or

(e) defendant knew that the dog had such propensity or was, or is, accustomed to doing acts causing injury or damage. 1998, c. 18, s. 177; 2000, c. 9, s. 42.

Halifax dog owners, BEWARE! The system is set up so that regardless of what happens, if you win, you lose, and if you lose, you lose BIG TIME. 

If you love your dog, and have half a brain, you will be very, very worried right this minute, because enough has already happened to set a precedent for more grief.

If the city of Halifax "wins" in the next hearing, EVERYBODY LOSES! Any dog can be taken away and/or put down for ANYTHING at all!

A case from B.C.: Two Dogs Fare Better Than One?

Pair of dogs get benefit of the doubt after owner appeals death sentence

Supreme Court justice agrees to give owner another chance to state her case

BY IAN MULGREW, VANCOUVER SUNSEPTEMBER 5, 2009

Sometimes justice goes to the dogs, like this week when B.C. Supreme Court Justice Doug Halfyard spared the life of a couple of half-breeds.

Zack, a German shepherd cross, and Chloe, a black Labrador cross, were seized Jan. 6 in Nanaimo, declared dangerous dogs July 9 by the provincial court and ordered destroyed.

But owner Elaine Cameron appealed, begging Halfyard to commute the death sentence.

Cameron argued that the pair of pets had been wrongly condemned for attacks on other dogs because of a misunderstanding that led to her being out of the courtroom for much of their trial, which hampered their defence.

Surprisingly, on Tuesday, Halfyard agreed.

"I conclude that if Ms. Cameron had had the opportunity to present her case in the way she would have done if she had been present throughout the hearing, the trial judge might not have made the destruction order," he wrote.

Halfyard continued gravely: "In my opinion, there is a risk that a miscarriage of justice will occur if this appeal is not allowed. Moreover, under our law, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done."

Even if you're a dog.

I couldn't help remembering a celebrated decision by the late Supreme Court Justice Doug Hogarth, who died in 1996 after a notable career.

With his eloquent 1992 judgment, Hogarth saved Robbie, a pure bred Scottish collie, from imminent execution.

The treasured family pet -- accused of nipping "the right gluteus maximus" of a woman in Langley Township -- was apprehended in April 1991 after "a dogfight" between its owners and animal control officers.

The family robustly protested their mute pooch was innocent. They were told he would be summarily executed if they didn't shut up.

"No lineup, photo or otherwise for Robbie," Hogarth lamented, "no charge, no dramatic readings of the Canine Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no plea, no trial, no application of the ancient and historic presumption of innocence, no appeal to the majesty of the Court of Appeal: guilt or innocence undetermined, Robbie faced the ignominy of almost immediate oblivion.

"Thus, Robbie was taken to the Langley Pound which, in the eyes of some, at least Robbie, is a far cry from the warmth, solicitude and understanding of home and hearth and which to him was indeed the equivalent of a canine Gulaag."

The family, like Cameron, insisted that not only shall every dog have his day, but their dog shall have his day in court. And they found the province's senior trial bench has its share of sentimental dog lovers.

Hogarth concluded Robbie was not the vicious culprit -- he had been at home "conducting himself with the essence of canine decorum, sober as a judge." Then he took aim at the Langley animal control bylaw.

"At first glance one assumes that this is a sort of 'War Measures Act' for Municipalities," he scoffed. "Within the context of the present case, one has visions of 'The Great Dog Insurrection of '88: British Bulldogs, German Shepherds, Russian Wolfhounds and the like, huddled in secret kennels presided over by an imperious Pekinese, plotting to overthrow the lawful authorities by force, while hounds in packs roam the highways and byways of the Defendant Township striking terror into the hearts of the citizens, ripping babies to shreds and the like."

Hogarth declared the dangerous-dog sections invalid.

But he advised Robbie to "apply to my judgment the immortal words of Christopher Morley that 'no one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as a dog does,' and he might well bear in mind that the common-law only allows a dog one bite before he can be condemned."

These two mutts in Nanaimo should take similar note as they head back to provincial court for a second hearing.

imulgrew@vancouversun.com

We assume that if a dog only gets one bite, it would be a bite out of a human... at the very least!! 
We'd also like to know: were those two dogs in BC held in the pound all that time? 

Listen to Olive, not Joan!

Joan Sinden is convinced: she believes this blog is written by the latest person she would like to see suffer. Today's lucky object is Francesca Rogier.

Not with any faith that it would be posted or even believed, but with a sense of duty, and revulsion as well, after seeing the comments from her usual fan base, we have posted the following comment on Joan's blog. She has convinced these people that Brindi's owner will not do all and everything required if Brindi is returned to her. How she can do this, we do not know. But after many similar attempts we are not surprised. She has kicked Francesca around on her plenty of times for over a year.

We hope nobody important might be listened to on these things. We are Nobody Important. We are a small group of people who blog under Nova Scotia Truth. We prefer our names to be kept private to avoid the kind of attacks that go on. To help Francesca however we have sometimes needed the passwords to various things, like blogs. One of us may have inadvertently linked to the blog catalogue in the wrong way; it was very problematic to do. It turned out wrong and we are deeply sorry. We realize you will not want believe "nobody important", but we are heartsick to see what is being said now. Francesca is simply trying to get her dog back and will do anything to keep her safe from harm or causing harm for the rest of her life. Since a dog trainer is no expert on human behavior, is it really proper for a trainer to make speculations in public about the psychology of a dog owner? When it comes to people, Ms. Jay was convinced at one point that Brindi's Angels might come and get her and do her physical harm.* Knowing the meek nature of the personnel involved, we can't help but wonder about her judgment and so should others. Regardless of whether anybody believes this, we stand by everything in the posts and continue to maintain that this is injustice and the owner must be restored her rightful property. Anyone may judge from the outside, but they do not know the truth from the inside out.

Some posts are written by individuals. Some by more than one at a time. We are separate from the rest, we keep a low profile and even those closest to Francesca are not aware of who we all are. 


It is regrettable that so often, intended help - speaking out on her behalf - ends up causing her harm. We have observed this happen to others and now we are the ones to feel bad about it. Since Francesca just lost her longtime companion cat, Rudy, over the course of a sad four days in and out of the vet, we are all the more sorry. 

But we will not allow this to silence us or others.

We hope people will prefer to read the letter published in today's Herald:

Brindi case a travesty

I suppose today that Peter Kelly and his council are smug in the wake of winning the court case against Francesca Rogier. I am angry because this court case was won for the mayor using my tax dollars.

I do not support the animal control laws as they stand, and I want them changed with input from pet owners and animal lovers. As far as I am concerned, this case is not about a crime committed by Francesca or her dog. Instead, it’s about the fact she challenged somebody’s authority.

And unfortunately, she depended on the justice system for help. I hope Nova Scotians will take notice that this could happen to you and your pet. We should have given Francesca more support in this terrible time as she tried to save her dog.

It is not too late. Protest this move and demand that Brindi be given back to Francesca. Brindi was kennelled for 19 months, Francesca has been financially devastated. This is abuse. What kind of society are we running anyway?

People of HRM, I beg you to vote this mayor and council out as quickly as possible and demand new laws to protect animals and pet owners, and select animal control officers with a stringent new hiring policy.


Olive Pastor, Caribou

PS The idea that one cannot employ the word "rape" in any but a literal sense is simply sad and not backed up by the dictionary.

*We note Silvia's comment, printed below. To clarify, we meant that Silvia at one point expressed concern that Brindi's Angels would cause Silvia herself harm (not Brindi). We are presently looking for the source of that information to confirm; if we don't have it within the next day or so we will remove it. While we have no control over what is posted on someone else's blog, if it becomes necessary we will post another comment there. 

The SPCA makes a FABULOUS DISCOVERY: Brindi is a peaceful, non-aggressive dog!

We thought they weren't supposed to notice. Or were deliberately not noticing.

We thought they were not involved in the decision or the outcome of the case in ANY way. After all, they posted a lot of news releases to this effect, and SPCA members repeated it on countless FB groups, blogs, and online newspaper comments, anytime people wanted to know why the "charity" (we use the word loosely) would not help get this dog off death row. 

BUT NOW ----- it's time to pull off the veil. We really knew it all along. 

Superintendent Bill Moore

Community Projects

Halifax Regional Police

February 12, 2010

Bill:

In follow up to our conversation yesterday, I would like to request that the Crown Attorney in

the Rogier/Brindi case make a further submission to the court to suggest an alternative

sentence to euthanasia.

The Nova Scotia SPCA would be willing to assist HRM in making alternative arrangements for

Brindi; such as adoption to home in which her needs could be met, and the community could be

assured of public safety.

It is the Society’s belief that Brindi could be safely placed. Brindi has demonstrated over the

last 18 months that she can live peacefully and happily with a responsible owner.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss further.

Best Regards,

Kristin Williams

Executive Director

Nova Scotia SPCA

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Nice, eh? 

So they would not argue against euthanasia when Brindi's desperate owner begged them to -and you will recall, she was NOT charged for six months, therefore, nobody tried to say that she was so irresponsible and guilty, too much to have the right to get her wrongly seized dog back. 

Let's remember something right away: The SPCA are NOT animal experts, trainers, or behaviorists, and they are NOT qualified to make such statements. Sean Kelly used this fact to back off of helping Brindi and her owner many times at the start of this whole cluster bang.... 


Second, the idea that Brindi's stay at the pound has any bearing on how she can live with a responsible owner is a total joke and typical SPCA logic. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? They cannot have it all ways, but they seem to get it every time. It so happens that we already KNOW Brindi is perfectly capable of these things by virtue of having done it before for a year, with her owner. And very very happily living with two cats as well, even sleeping with them. 

Side note: We haven't had the time or the stomach to detail here what the SPCA has been continuing to do to Janice Bingley but we know that the dogs have been up for adoption permanently, long before charges were laid - correction, charge - and now the hearing on that charge is scheduled for July! 

By the way ...after Brindi's owner was finally charged, the AC officer Hamm invented the story that he didn't charge her earlier because he "felt sorry for her" because he took her dog, and she didn't need financial hardship (of a $300 fine? Instead of over $30,000 for court and legal fees=? LOGICAL! The judge bought it, too! Oddly, the fine is the ONLY penalty offered by A300 and the city swears she was guilty and irresponsible yet did NOT want to punish her with charges?? Not make money on fines and label her guilty`? MORE LIKELY, Hamm didn't want her to have the chance to go before a judge too easily, certainly not without great expense and not in the first month or two! The judge might have actually released her dog! He's no fool, as an ex-cop. But other people are if believe his story. We heard on the stand the man showed he literally has no idea what is written in the by-law. Yet he knows how to get around it AND the Charter just fine.

The SPCA has a lot in common with Tim Hamm in this regard. But we digress. 

It's just so interesting that a group that has kept an animal in a substandard short-term facility for 19 months, fiercely denying all the harm to her health (even with cancer scares, dental disease, and pancreatis accumulating by the month), now wants to have its opinion considered on the question of how to best meet Brindi's needs. 


How can the SPCA in Nova Scotia possibly purport to know what that even means, when their current president is known to be responsible for teaching Brindi bad behavior such as jumping up on people to demand (not receive, but also demand) a treat? Something that Brindi was strictly NOT allowed (let alone taught) to do in her life with her real owner! How can these people expect the right to have a say, even if they were qualified to have one??? 

THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND IT MUST BE PUT TO A STOP. 

SOONER OR LATER IT WILL. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: We would simply prefer the time to be now, for Brindi's sake, and her owner's, who is a person with a lot of education and skill to offer to this province. 

The law makes animals property, and property is the sacred core of individual and corporate rights in any capitalist system - unless it's a dog, somehow! The "property owner" rights are somehow non-extant in this case. They are automatically value-less. 

SO is the idea that dogs themselves are the center of a billion-dollar industry; if people believed dogs were nothing more than property, Hollywood would not be spewing out dog movie after dog movie all year round. Yet these highly valued box office smashes are discarded by the thousands daily and if they happen to offend in the least possible way, it's off with their heads!! 

OR, off with their owner's head, if the dog happens to turn out to be a sweetheart that everybody likes!! How impossible it is for a human to compete with a sweet dog! No way for Francesca to endear herself as well to the powers that be, even if she were as cute and lovable as, say, Minnie Mouse! Tough luck...

Kristin Williams on the other hand could probably pull it off. After all, she used to work at an amusement park, didn't she? 

ON the other hand, 

How bright is Bob Ottenbrite, Councilor Wile?

REPLY FROM HRM COUNCILOR TO A PLEA TO LET BRINDI GO BACK HOME TO HER OWNER SENT BY A MEMBER OF HUMANE HALIFAX:

From: Mary Wile <mailto:wilema@halifax.ca>  
To: VS
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Brindi

Mrs. S- there is another option and that is a Mr. Bob Ottenbrite, a well-known dog trainer, who help train Brindi,, said he would take the dog and Francesca can visit Brindi. They live nearby.  However, the owner doesn't want to do this.

Franseca has done this before, it wasn't the first time, so obviously she has proven that she is unable to care for her dog.  It gets down to what is the best for the dog-i don't think Brindi should be put down and  I do feel Mr. Ottenbrite should care for the dog. A happy ending.

There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago re the possibility of Mr. Ottenbrite taking Brindi.

Thank you for your concern. 
_______________________

Ms. Wile, we respectfully disagree with your notion of a happy ending!!!!! Aside from the question of how the public can be sure that Mr. Ottenbrite would live up to his word, we must protest loudly, what sort of option this is? What decent trainer would recommend locking up this poor sick animal forever? 


Ms. Wile, an awful lot of Haligonians are very dissatisfied with you and your colleagues for creating an unconstitutional and incomplete law, and not lifting a finger to change it for two years already. They are also deeply unhappy with the way HRM Animal Services applies the law (badly), not to mention its unacceptable treatment of Rogier and Brindi. 

So tell us, Ms. Wile, exactly what has Brindi's owner "done before"? Was she charged and convicted for anything? NO. We ask, why is an elected official speaking in this libelous way? 

Tell us also, how has Rogier “obviously proven" she is unable to care for her dog?? We strongly doubt this. Can the Council say with certitude that Rogier is any worse than the dozens of HRM dog owners who since January 2007 allowed their dogs to seriously and in many cases repeatedly injure people and/or animals - including several who killed chickens and cats? Anyone doubting how poorly Animal Services insure public safety, must see this chart of by-law charges (nobody knows how many dogs are never charged). 67 of those dog owners were charged, some convicted, yet only one ever lost their dog. 
Rogier is a far better dog owner than a certain policeman on that chart named Justin Murphy who owns a rather large and fierce dog (a dogo argentino). In one instance alone, Murphy's dog savagely bit the hand of Bonita Pasquet's 15 year old son, leading to emergency surgery with stitches. Murphy quickly changed  his location in order to protect his dog from a seizure. None ever came. After a long battle to have him charged, the judge simply dropped the case, claiming the Crown could not prove the dog was Murphy's, due to the change in address, even though Murphy freely admitted it was his dog. Pasquet planned to sue him in civil court but life took another course for her. She was furious to learn recently that this was not the first time Murphy was charged for his dog attacking people/animals. One charge was withdrawn, the other converted into a charge of running at large, and fined for about $200. No muzzle. No euthanization. No nothing. Pasquet says before he moved, his dog terrorized the neighborhood, attacking many kids and animals that never resulted in charges. It's nice when you are in the business, eh?


So in our view, Rogier's guilty verdict means precious little. The Council may not know that absolutely NO evidence was presented in court to prove that Brindi bit or truly attacked any dog on July 20, 2008; we only have the dogwalker's word for it, contradicting two other witnesses. For his part, Mr. Shea, the dog walker, changed his testimony a number of times, and in each version he claimed he never heard what was a very loud truck horn, honked about 15 seconds after Brindi escaped her owner's grip (which ended the "attack" that he says lasted minutes). The truck driver testified to his own honking AND to seeing Rogier arrive at the street edge at the same moment - after she ran less than 40 feet to get there, which did not take longer than 15 seconds. That driver also testified that he saw Mr. Shea kicking Brindi repeatedly and pursuing her into the road with his kicks. Brindi might have run off to just have a sniff at his dogs - we'll never really know, because he started kicking her right away! (He says he heard her growl - but never heard the horn. Weird hearing!)
We respectfully remind the councilors and the mayor that Ms. Rogier took a four year old rescue dog from a two year stint in a shelter and pretty smoothly acclimated her to a community where she was fairly beloved, passing obedience class within two months, sleeping with two cats within three months. The mishaps were anomalies that led to no serious harm, and are regarded by the vast majority of dog lovers and trainers around the world (thousands) as normal behavior, if not ideal for humans to witness: this is not a dog that tried to kill an animal or a person. Far from it! In this video of Rogier and her loving dog at the shelter, we challenge anybody to recognize a dog that is truly so vicious it must be locked up forever.

We respectfully ask Mary Wile and her buddies on the council to carefully read the letters on http://supportbrindi.blogspot.com about Brindi and her owner, including the ones from two young girls, a mom with small kids, and several other dog owners, not to mention the kennel, groomer, and vet. 

We also remind the councilors that it was due to their neglect to provide a proper appeal process that forced Ms. Rogier to file suit against HRM to stop the kill order, then launch a supreme court case to get her dog back. And for her trouble, HRM continued to illegally keep her dog locked up. You cannot be unaware that she has been suffering financially, emotionally, and professionally and her poor dog is aging fast and contracting chronic illness - while the SPCA has treated her like a terrorist when it comes to visits, prohibiting even photos!! 

We fear that Ms. Wile has been badly misled, and so has the public. Not only is Mr. Ottenbrite's Mt. Udiacke facility well over an hour away from Ms. Rogier's home in East Chezzetcook, but we have serious doubts both about the wisdom of his "option", as well as about his sincerity and motives. We feel the entire council ought to be made aware of these things it publicly endorses his “option”.

So, how bright is Mr. Ottenbrite? Shiny like vinyl posing as satin. Get this flow of events:

• Brindi and her owner passed Ottenbrite's obedience course in late summer 07 with relative ease (and hard work, we assume), shortly after Brindi was adopted. During those eight weeks of classes, Brindi never attacked another dog. This is not disputed; in fact, a vet who attended many of the same classes testified to this. 
• After that, Ms. Rogier turned to Ottenbrite for advice on how to handle Brindi on the few occasions when, to everyone's surprise, a mishap occurred . 
• His advice consisted of not much more than reassuring Rogier that Brindi's behavior was just a chance happening, basically harmless and normal, until the third time she called more insistently on him for help. At that time, he advised her to take Brindi to agility training at his facility an hour away. Rogier obediently paid his fee and started classes. 
• In this regard, we feel Ottenbrite is partly responsible for Brindi and let down her owner. But Instead of stepping up to the plate for Brindi at the start to tell HRM she is not dangerous, he said nothing, to cover his reputation; later, he blamed everything on her owner.
• After a year and a half of letting Rogier twist in the breeze, Mr. O quite inappropriately wrote a letter to her trial judge to try to intervene in the proceedings without anyone requesting his help– either HRM or Rogier. The judge was greatly annoyed; she did not read the letter, so did not know who wrote it. Interestingly, the hired-gun prosecutor, Mr. Newton, DID KNOW. That must mean that Newton was privy to Ottenbrite's plans - Rogier was not, however. 
• SO, after failing this dog and owner for ages, Mr. O now deceives the latter and proposes to lock up the former for the rest of her life. Nice.
• To achieve his goal, on Feb. 3, he promised Rogier in front of witnesses that his intentions were all in her favor; he promised he would not propose his option to the court or public until and unless the sentencing came down to death for Brindi. He later promised only to offer to take Brindi temporarily and give her back at a future time - after either a proper legal action or Rogier leaving HRM. 
• But as soon as the verdict was announced this past Tuesday, Mr. O went directly to the media even before they had a chance to interview Rogier. And in his media version of the "option", O changed the temporary stay to a permanent one, unbeknownst to Rogier. Nice!
• Mr. O then had the audacity to let it be thought that he and Rogier live close to one another!??! If East Chezzetcook and Mt. Uniacke are close by, it's news to us!! 

Not only does Ottenbrite stand alone in his view of HRM geography: we also understand that no other trainer since 2008 - and Rogier has been contacted by many and contacted many others - has echoed O's advice of agility training. The consensus has been that she should hire a private trainer to work with her and her dog right on her property. 


So how bright is Ottenbrite? What is really going on?


Ottenbrite's longtime connections to the infamous SPCA are no secret. Around 2003, he was its director and is reputed to have ruled with an iron hand. So his earlier silence about the seizure raises many questions: was he silent to protect the SPCA from criticism for their part in this fiasco? What is his position now, now that the SPCA has succeeded in ruining this dog's life, with chronic illness? 

What we see is a trainer taking advantage of a former client in many ways. Recently we learned from a contact to Rogier that Ottenbrite still owes her a fair amount of cash for the remaining agility lessons. A year ago, he told Rogier he would never refund that money despite her financial need. He cited a no-refund policy not given in writing. The problem is, he also flatly refused to give her the remaining lessons at any time. She has since filed a small claims suit against Ottenbrite for the money, plus damages. The hearing is scheduled March 23. We think she'll get win on that one.) So Ottenbrite is, um, far from a neutral third party.... he has a decided interest here, and it is not in Rogier's favor, let alone her dog's.

We find that Mr. Ottenbrite's "option" is far from a fair outcome; it simply compounds HRM's initial wrongdoing in a blatant way. It is so dismaying that he is willing to deceive Rogier and the public for personal gain, while claiming he is impartial. He is hoping to be seen as a knight in shining armour with an option that is so clearly NOT in the best interest of any dog or anyone involved, other than HRM and the SPCA. 


BAD dog trainer!!!! 

Unfortunately, the councilors are too in the dark to understand that far from resolving this situation fairly, Ottenbrite wants to complete the process started by their own staff at Animal Services, namely, a rape in all but name of a single woman who came to Canada to fulfill her dream. Ottenbrite is shamelessly using this woman's misery and her dog's life simply to promote his own business and protect his friends. Worse - he has a connection to a strange woman named Gail Gallant who is known to have been harassing and stalking Rogier for a year now. Ms. Gallant has publicly stated numerous times that she is determined to prevent Rogier from getting Brindi back home - even spreading rumours that neighbors would shoot the dog! 


Not long ago, this was seen on Facebook: 

Bob O said Dec 7, 09: Gail,I will work with the judge before Jan. & you do what you do best.  

We rest our case. 

And in contrast to Mr. O, we find that Rogier has shown far more integrity, told the truth, and been consistent, not to mention the fact that she is the only person to provide a badly needed corrective to the bad by-law A300 to date, while Ottenbrite has said nothing about the law, never mind making an attempt to improve it.

Plus: soon after Animal Services - contrary to all reason and expectation and the law - seized Brindi, Rogier committed publicly to how she would insure public safety in exchange for her dog's life: correct Brindi's behavior with targeted training, and build a fence; she also stated she was quite willing to pay fines for guilty charges, IF only she were charged! Rogier even went one step further and built the fence and hired the trainer soon afterwards, but there came no response at all from Halifax. The contrast to the recent case in NB could not be greater. 


We feel Halifax can trust in Rogier to do the right thing more than Ottenbrite, who is out for himself and his own business interests (the PR will do a lot for him).

MS. WILE: Perhaps you are not aware that it so happens that Ms. Rogier has a much better option on the table, that the judge knows nothing about thanks to HRM. A trainer right here in Halifax named Ted Efthymiadis informed HRM lawyers early last summer that he is willing to train Brindi for free and insure against future issues. But the lawyers and animal services staff never told you and the Council about this. WHY?

PLEASE,  DO YOUR JOB, Ms. Wile! First of all, get the info yourself! Take the time to find out how these officials staff go about their business, and above all, find out the real facts before you endorse any option. And no option is right, other than returning Brindi to her poor beleaguered owner!!

Dog bites old lady in NB - gets probation. Are you listening, HRM?

We were very interested to see this story in light of the fate of Brindi, who has been given far less of a chance for committing much less serious offenses. We also learned directly from the reporter that in spite of its behavior and its owner's lack of control, the majority of folks in Hampton united firmly behind this woman in a determined campaign to save Sophie and get her back home. Remember: Brindi has never attacked a human and has never inflicted serious harm on a dog. Her owner was able to find a committed lawyer and a solid trainer to help her. 

After you read about this dog - which was never seized, allowing the owner time to work on its behavior - then see these videos: this one and this one. And tell us what YOU think. 

 Judge puts dog that bit Hampton senior on probation

Published Wednesday February 17th, 2010

A dog facing a death setence got a new lease on life Tuesday.

A1

Tammy Scott-Wallace

Telegraph-Journal

HAMPTON -  Sophie, a two-year-old German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Labrador mix, was given a second chance to behave by provincial court Judge Henrik Tonning despite the town of Hampton's order that the dog be euthanized for biting a senior woman last summer.

"I think this is the first time I put a dog on probation," Tonning told the large crowd who gathered for the unusual case.

From now on, Sophie must wear a muzzle at all
times when she is outside her owner's 1005 Main Street home in Hampton.

The court heard from 80-year-old Shirley Bettle who said on July 3, 2009, as she was making the regular half-hour trek she enjoys daily with a friend, she passed Short's home. Typically she would hear Short's two dogs barking as she strolled by, but on that morning Sophie was loose and shot out to the sidewalk, grabbing Bettle's upper thigh in her teeth and knocking her to the ground.

The dog's owner, who told the court she was in the process of taking Sophie into the house when she tripped and lost hold of the dog's collar, ran quickly to Bettle's aid. She put Sophie inside the house and returned to Bettle as others also converged to help.

Bettle was taken to the Saint John Regional Hospital and given a tetanus shot, the four punctures from Sophie's teeth were dressed and she was placed on pain killers and antibiotics for the injuries. Following the attack she was visited at home by a nurse twice a day to have her bandages changed until her husband learned the technique.

Ten days after the incident, Bettle's doctor, John Quinn, testified he treated Bettle for her reoccurring injury which, by the time he saw her, had developed into an oozing infection for which he changed her medications. She also had a large bruise on her upper thigh, Quinn said.

While he is not an expert, in a letter to the town's dog control officer Darin Clarke, he said it was "one of the most severe dog attacks" he had seen in 33 years as a family physician practising in Hampton.

"I recommended the dog be destroyed," Quinn said from the stand.

Seven months later, Bettle said she still experiences soreness from the bite and it is having a hard time healing.

Three neighbours of Short's took the stand and said they fear Short's dogs, which they said bark constantly in her backyard.

"I say shut up, and sometimes they do, sometimes they don't," said Robert Sturgeon who lives beside Short's property.

"If it comes into my yard it will be put down," Sturgeon said matter-of-factly. He has children ages six and 12.

Robert Harrison said he keeps a shovel outside near the door in case Sophie ventures onto his yard.

Since the incident, however, Short spent $4,200 to erect a four-foot fence - all she was allowed under town bylaws - and has enrolled Sophie in intense dog training as well as introduced her to dog agility classes.

The day after Bettle was attacked, at the advice of doctors she called the Hampton RCMP and Const. Simon Jones and dog officer Clarke attended the scene and seized Sophie.

Clarke, who was declared a dog training expert in court, testified that, when he visited Short's home and asked to see the dog, it was immediately apparent it was out of control. He said it was barking and growling, and once he took her to his property for the ensuing 12 days, her temperament was inconsistent and she showed fear and aggression when unprovoked.

Short said Sophie was worth fighting for and, while her pet has a lot of energy, she is a fast learner and has been making huge progress in the 20 hours of training she has had with Bloomfield dog trainer and behaviour counsellor Andrew Turner.

She said Sophie was young, untrained and nervous with strangers but is changing daily. She said on July 3, there was also a thunderstorm that frightened the dog.

"I had never seen this happen before," she said of Sophie's attack. "I'm very sorry that this ever happened and I have made every effort to ensure the town it will never happen again."

Turner said Sophie is obviously calmer and less fearful, but stressed to the court that all dogs bite.

"Dogs bark and dogs bite, that's what they do," the witness for the defence said.

"The underlying emotion is fear," he said.

When Sophie is training in town locations like the mall, he said she is double leashed, wears a harness and anxiety wrap, as well as a basket muzzle to ensure she can't bite.

"Even though she's doing really well, we have to take it slowly. I've advised against walking in Hampton" at this stage.

Turner said believes Sophie's removal from the property as she was following the biting incident made matters worse.

The way the dog was taken, Turner said, "showed little skill and no compassion for the dog."

Turner said it would not be humane to order Sophie to die when she is making progress and has great potential.

Representing the Crown, David Lutz said Sophie should either be euthanized or removed from the community.

"Seven-and-a-half months later, 15 lessons later, 20 hours later "¦ and this dog doesn't appear to be any safer than she was on July 3," he said.

He said Hampton is probably the safest place on Earth except for walkers, joggers and children passing Short's home.

"A dog like this does not belong in downtown Hampton."

Defence lawyer Nadia MacPhee said the dog biting was an isolated incident. She called Sophie a young dog that was scared on that day.

"This isn't the same dog who, a couple of months ago, wouldn't listen to her owner and charged onto the sidewalk," MacPhee said.

Under the town's bylaw, the judge could deem Sophie dangerous and order the dog euthanized, or he could impose restrictions to ensure the dog is kept under control.

Tonning said because of Short's "tremendous attempts," he ordered the second chance at life for Sophie.

He said it is unacceptable that Sophie bit, and stressed to Short that Bettle is entitled to walk the streets of Hampton in safety. He added, however, that the town's one-strike approach to biting dogs is not a good one.

The judge warned Short, however, if Sophie bites again, his decision will be death.

After Tonning's decision, Bettle and Short embraced and again Short offered her apologies.

"I have absolutely no doubt she will be a perfect dog," the elated Short said outside the courtroom.

..........................

By the way: the reporter also told us that the community of dog lovers in Hampton filled the courtroom to support this dog owner, and called the town to file numerous complaints against the animal control officer.

Sophie was seized and impounded for only 12 days - why? Because her owner was able to get an inspector to visit the pound and declare it unfit for the dog to be kept in any longer than that! So Sophie was able to go home where the owner could work with her and a trainer in private and successfully improve her behavior. Imagine. Sadly, in Halifax, since the SPCA ran the pound, there was NO inspector to come and do the same for Brindi.

We can't help but wonder: was Francesca Rogier's real mistake in settling here instead of New Brunswick?