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.
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!
Did the City of Montreal (or borough) had the tools and powers to do everything possible to avoid the Vadnais incident? Let’s see what the city of Montreal (or borough) could have invoked and applied as a regulation, in the case of this dog (regulation RCA14-30063 in effect from 2014 to October 2016):
1) To invoke and apply Section 1: definition of dangerous dog (ie: who tries to bite or bite …) of guardian, to muzzle …
2) To invoke and apply Section 2.2 (euthanasia order for an animal considered to be dangerous)
3) To invoke and apply Section 12 (keep control of the animal);
4) To invoke and apply Section 16, par. 5 (constitutes a nuisance and is prohibited … for a dog to bite a person)
5) To invoke and apply Section 18 (assessment, custody and order of euthanasia (if applicable))
6) To invoke and apply Section 19 paragraph 2 (displays on the presence of a dangerous animal), 3 (follow a behavioural therapy), 4 (requirement to keep the dog inside a fenced yard of a minimum height of 2 metres) and 5 (dangerous dog must be muzzled and kept on a leash of less than one metre, at all times outside);
From this evaluation, would an order of euthanasia have been given? Let’s say that it would have been a safe bet that the behaviour of the animal and the guardian of the animal at the time of the incident to Mrs. Vadnais was the same as, at the time of the incident, October 26, 2015.
“The Guy,” Clanimal.com