[Image-1]
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated Bastarache visited her dog at Wyndenfog. All visits with Chomper took place at Homeward Bound. Wyndenfog was also incorrectly identified as a pound. It is in fact a boarding kennel. The Coast has removed these references and apologizes for the errors.
Chomper was seized by the city this year after an incident with another dog. The young pitbull had attacked a smaller dog, who ended up dying. Chomper was held at the Wyndenfog kennel in West Chezzetcook for eight months while owner Jessica Bastarache awaited her court date.
Vaughan Black, a professor of animal law at Dalhousie University, says the dog bylaws in HRM are seriously flawed. The lack of clarity in the legislation allows the city to hold dogs captive for undetermined and long periods of time.
“It’s full of spelling errors, and looks like it was drafted by a grade seven student,” says Black. “And that’s evidence of the bigger problem, which is that this is not a well-thought-out piece of legislation.”
As it presently stands, the facility owner is obligated by the city to hold seized animals until the legal matter is dealt with in court. Black says the law should be changed to put the onus on Halifax. The city should have to take the animal owners to court to prove the dog is dangerous and then have it taken away.
“Unlike a piece of material evidence, such as a gun, the animal is going to suffer from not being with the owners,” Black adds.
The Wyndenfog kennel can house dogs that have violated HRM bylaws. It’s subcontracted by Homeward Bound, the private company that holds the pound contract with the city. Usually, the dogs’ owners are awaiting a court date—which can take months, sometimes years.
The owner of Homeward Bound, Hope Swinimer, says the brand-new facility is adapted for long-term stays. “Unfortunately, the courts move very slowly, and taking an animal away from their owner is never ideal, so we’re trying to make their stay as comfortable as possible,” she says.
She adds that Homeward Bound have been trying to keep the subcontract with Wyndenfog a secret because it deals with cases that are before the courts. “Sometimes it’s better for the sake of peace and quiet,” she says, admitting that Wyndenfog’s owner has been subject to harassment because of her role in keeping these dogs at her facility for extended periods of time.
Susan Jordan, a professional dog trainer who specializes in behavioural issues, says HRM’s bylaw is not up to date with current canine science. “It was not written in consultation with a canine behavioural professional, and shows a huge lack of understanding of animal behaviour.”
According to the bylaw, an “attack” can still be defined as a dog giving the impression of threatening a person or another animal.
“Posturing is a way for dogs to mitigate conflict. By misinterpreting terms such as ‘attack,’ we are calling non-dangerous dogs dangerous,” Jordan says, adding that if laws were more comprehensive, fewer dogs would be locked up.
“What we need is education,” Jordan says, adding that Calgary recently implemented forward-thinking animal legislation, including mandatory behavioral assessments to access city dog parks. “Their incidents have dropped dramatically as a result.”
Jennifer Stairs, a communications advisor for HRM, confirms the bylaws were not written in consultation with canine behavioral specialists, but adds the municipality is in the midst of reviewing and rewriting them.
Related Stories
Bus ticket monopoly is a hassle for retailers and riders
Forensic lab closure a blow to justice
Transit services fall short on accessibility
Streetlight scarcity casts risky shadows
Crosswalk signals are pushing all the wrong buttons
This article appears in Jan 8-14, 2015.
Two or three big red flags spring up in this piece: 1, the headline, and 2, the sentence, “The lack of clarity in the legislation allows the city to hold dogs captive for undetermined and long periods of time.”
Before getting into these, first, thanks are due, because any local media coverage of the dreadful and harmful situation of dog by-laws and the woeful practices of animal services in Halifax is very, very welcome. Similarly, it is good that Susan Jordan (who has written about the by-laws) and Prof. Black were consulted. Well done.
Of all the municipal laws, HRM dog by-laws are probably the least understood – by the public, the media, elected officials, and yes, even by judges. Few know that dog by-laws are contained not just in By-Law A-300 but also in the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter (s. 194-197), for instance, and this is a big problem. Once you get a sense of the legal situation, you can see why the city prefers to keep the public ignorant. As a whole, the laws are unenforceable, and key individual parts, such as the definition of “dangerous dog”, the core of any dog legislation, cannot be (and consequently are not) applied consistently or at all because they are too vague and sweeping, or full of gaps.
Few understand exactly how HRM enforces these flawed dog laws and how harmful it has been. The data is tightly held, but there is enough available online to piece together a picture of radically inconsistent enforcement backed by highly questionable decisions – a see-saw logic, where some dogs that have caused severe injury are not seized, and the city makes deals with the owners to pay fines, on the one hand, and on the other, owners of dogs that cause little or no harm are punished in the most severe way, their dogs held for a year or more and then killed if they can’t pay for a lawyer, and so on. And, again, once you get a sense of this, you will understand the real reason Hope Swinimer and Wyndenfog kennel owner Christine Graham (who is also a trainer and should know better), are grateful for the secrecy.
Now to the red flags.
RED FLAG #1: the headline “Impounded dogs are at the mercy of slow-moving courts”. Um, NO. It is not the fault of the courts at all. Why? Because nothing in the law obliges OR requires HRM – and by extension, poundkeeper Hope Swinimer – to detain dogs pending trial. HRM chooses to detain dogs whose owners it plans to prosecute (some, not all*) and continues to hold on to them all by itself.
As the courts have no part in the decision to seize or detain dogs, they also have nothing to do with lengthy impoundments. So don’t blame them! HRM alone, in the form of animal services and legal services, is wholly responsible for creating circumstances that make a dog’s impoundment contingent on the date and outcome of a trial of its owner. And this is something that HRM has been doing since 2008 without any statutory (legal) authority or court authorization (apart from during appeals).
In any case, do not blame the courts for the long impoundments – UNLESS, however, you are reporting on the number of times the courts have declined to address the issue when it is brought up in an application or a motion. There you might have something!
RED FLAG #2: “The lack of clarity in the legislation allows the city to hold dogs captive for undetermined and long periods of time.” No, not really. Bad and vague as some parts of the legislation may be, it would be false and misleading to blame it for this practice. HRM alone, not a court, decides when to detain a dog and why. And the reasons are not always consistent with the law or its intent – or the facts of a case, for that matter. And this hints at why this issue is not at all insignificant, but very central to the mess that is HRM Animal Services dog law enforcement.
The truth is, nothing in any applicable law or policy actually “allows” or even requires HRM to hold seized dogs (that are owned – not strays) for undetermined and long periods of time. HRM just *does* it anyway, following its motto of “might makes right”. As in other areas, for years HRM has been exploiting the public’s lack of knowledge, the Council’s lack of interest, and the courts’ reluctance to address this practice. And – much like the lack of guidance for judges asked to decide whether a dog should live or die – this is a massive area that is woefully underreported.
Not only is there nothing in HRM law allowing or requiring it – other laws, higher laws that supersede HRM laws – forbid it, in line with fundamental principles of democracy. Dogs are private property. The Canada Criminal Code and the Nova Scotia Summary Proceedings Act both expressly PROHIBIT the authorities from holding seized private property for ANY length of time, UNLESS it is required as evidence in a proceeding (at court or before a tribune, etc.).**
D o g s a r e n o t e v i d e n c e, people. Not for the purposes of prosecuting their owners for by-law offences. Therefore, HRM has no right to hold them.
This means the remedy is not to pass an HRM by-law that allows HRM to hold dogs indefinitely and/or pending trial – something that no decent vet or trainer would ever endorse. No, the answer lies in separating the dogs from the owners in the law: prosecute the owners to whatever timetable works, but deal with the dogs immediately without fail, and with a separate proceeding, whether in the courts or before a special tribune (of experts), as in Calgary – where these proceedings, and impoundments, are limited to 30 days, with another 30 days allowed for appeals.
Finally, while praise is due for the coverage, the Coast nevertheless deserves a stinging dope-slap for failing to mention Brindi. Really?! This long-suffering captive of HRM for some seven years (mostly without legal authority, let alone necessity) never bit a person or savaged a dog. Or tried to. Despite the local self-censorship, Halifax’s utterly needless and undeniably harmful treatment of Brindi is known around the world. HRM is destined to go down in history as a perfect example of municipal absolutism at its most senseless extreme – rivaling anything ever written by Kafka.
HRM’s repeated refusals to adopt alternate measures for Brindi at every juncture, and its decision to ignore her veterinarian’s recommended health plan (including supplements and monitoring her blood for pancreatitis, etc.), make it very likely that she will die in custody. And this is, in a word, unforgivable.
One can only speculate that with more complete and more frequent reporting by good journalists, Brindi would have been out and back home a whole lot sooner and with a lot less damage done to her and her owner – and other dogs like Chomper and their owners would have been spared their traumatic ordeals as well.
_____________________________
*The HRM by-laws say nothing about detaining seized dogs beyond turning them over to the pound keeper. Ask HRM, of course, and you will get a circular answer about the pound keeper holding the dog until a court orders otherwise – this is not the right answer, however, when it comes to HRM’s right to have this done.
Nor do provincial law says anything about detaining dogs after seizure, beyond allowing municipalities to pass laws that allow them (municipalities) to destroy them.
Why HRM Animal Services does not impound all dogs equally is a mystery and a pretty major scandal, to be frank. By equally, I mean, HRM does not systematically impound all dogs whose owners are charged under A-300 with “owning a dog that attacks a person or an animal”. What is clear, however, is that HRM impounds only the dogs it wants to kill, and that this is because, in light of the circuitous legal process, it does not want to give the owners a chance to take the dog out of the jurisdiction to save its life. HRM lawyers seem to think – and this can be taken straight out of their written briefs – that HRM has the right to hang on to a dog indefinitely simply by virtue of the fact that HRM plans to kill it and needs time to get a court order. I.e., HRM believes its right to kill comes before the right of property owners. This has never been tested in court – one of those sticky issues the courts dislike – but it is wrong in a hundred different ways and is not mirrored in the conduct of other cities on record.
Nor were long impoundments the intention of HRM Council when it passed the dog laws in 2008.
**The Canada Criminal Code (federal) and the Nova Scotia Summary Proceedings Act (provincial) have duplicate wording to the effect that whoever receives and holds seized private property is obliged to determine whether it can be lawfully held, i.e., is needed as evidence. If not needed, the law requires that person return the seized property to its lawful owner immediately – 90 days after seizure at the very latest. Beyond this, the person (and authorities) holding the property have an obligation to obtain a judge’s permission to continue holding. And the only way a judge can grant permission is if the property is needed as evidence. And dogs are not evidence, so, Halifax can never get that permission. This is one reason why other cities like Calgary are careful to set strict limits on “impoundment”. Another reason is, obviously, that it is bad for dogs and causes their owners a great deal of suffering – especially when visitation is denied (similarly without any legal authority).
So, dear people of Halifax: your city has been breaking the law for a long, long time. What will you do about it?
Obviously animal cruelty by HRM! Are these people complete idiots and morons?
Free the dog Brindi ..city of Halifax !! From a worried citizen of Europe
Most cases its not the dog but careless dog owners who allow their dog to get into a situation where it ends up in court and the dog is seized.
If it looks like a pig, sounds like a pig, acts like a pig, and smells like a pig, it is a pig!
Is it an established fact that Chomper was held at Wyndenfog? It appears Jessica Bastarache was never given any information on this, and it would be good to have it verified. Please!
Natasha Parker’s dog Sausha, seized at the young age of 2 in Dec. 2012 and held for a year, was killed without any sort of proper hearing.
While it is true that Natasha did not appear in court on the charge of owning a dog that attacks – she was unable to afford a lawyer and afraid or unable to defend herself in court (although from what we understand, there was a very valid defense) – the question is, was the city of Halifax justified in killing Sausha without a hearing or even bothering to obtain a professional opinion?
And what about the fact that the law in Halifax does not require or suggest that a dangerous dog be killed?? Was killing Sausha truly lawful? What does Hope Swinimer say about this?
I have to wonder what is really going on. When pound owners like to keep things secret, it’s usually because they have something to hide. Something ugly.
@Carolyn E. Guess you don’t know much about Brindi’s story. She didn’t deserve to be seized. It was total BS from the start. I would not be so trusting in HRM if I were you.
When my dog was detained at that pound I was extremely upset to see how dehydrated he was. It took 3 days to get him back to normal. The panting was non stop for the 3 days 🙁 i dont even know if my dog had a blanket 🙁 it also up sets me to know homeward bound is allowed to lie to people . what kind of justice system give anyone the right to lie to someone about their own property. When I called to check on my dog they told me fauls information. These are not objects these our family members, these are dogs, they shouldnt have to go to dog jail to begin with. . This system is ridiculous.
Also my dog was at wyndenfog the whole time. He was only brought to homeward bound for visits once a month
Excellent idea: mandatory behavioral assessments to access city dog parks. Excellent idea no. 2: listen to Susan Jordan.