CODERRE admin: responsible for the death of Christiane Vadnais? (2/6)

Home / Admin Stories / CODERRE admin: responsible for the death of Christiane Vadnais? (2/6)
(Here is Article 2) (Montreal, October 31, 2017)

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: From October 30 to November 5, Clanimal analyzes the responsibility of certain actors in the death of Mrs. Vadnais and its impact on thousands of animal guardians in Montreal.

Summary of facts

On June 8, 2016, when she returned from her job, Christiane Vadnais from Pointe-aux-Trembles had a tragic end, following an altercation with her neighbour’s pit bull dog.

Since then, the municipal authorities have promulgated a series of “anti pit bull” regulations and other measures, with significant consequences for the citizens of Quebec, especially those of Montreal!


So I wanted to take a closer look and find answers (or at least beginnings of answers) to the following questions:

1. Who is responsible for the death of Mrs. Christiane Vadnais?

2. Why were there no criminal charges against the guardian of the animal involved?

3. What to do with the settlement at “Bully Coderre” and this one?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Who is responsible for the death of Mrs. Christiane Vadnais?

According to my reading of Coroner Lichtblau’s report, there is a strong appearance of co-negligence between the City of Montreal and the guardian of the animal.

a) responsibility of the City of Montreal (and borough)

For the City of Montreal, the coroner’s report is, however, very clear on the fact that a bite file was opened on October 26, 2015, less than 8 months before the Vadnais incident!

And yet, despite the circumstances in this case (ie: 2 bites, fracture, etc.) the City of Montreal (or the borough) never intervened with the guardian of the animal involved … the same who has been involved in the death of Madame Vadnais!

(Excerpts from Coroner’s report Dr Ethan Lichtblau, file 2016-00495, Sept. 28, 2017, death of Christiane Vadnais, page 6)

According to the police report, the landlord is advised that the file would be tracked by the municipality involved, and it appears that the municipality has never done the required follow-up.

It is also likely to include a certain casualness on the part of the neighborhood (see some negligence) especially to avoid the occurrence of the incident, or at least a faster response to the incident.

Tomorrow follows the next part of our analysis, and, in the meantime, take time to read, some of the analysis that I have made on some aspects of this regulation, since the fall of 2016.

“The Guy,”

1.      How to “pis off” the population

The Guy

Leave a Comment


Recent Posts
Contact Us

Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!