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!
So, the odds of an order for euthanasia being issued at this time (2015) say, most likely high, and the intention to intervene by the animal’s guardian and / or the chances of overthrowing an order of euthanasia is the opposite( i.e. very thin.)
Why was it not done? Or, if it is the opposite, why the conditions of care of this dog, were not tightened? Because, according to the report of Coroner Lichtblau (see below) this does not seem to have never been the case.
It is therefore highly likely that, in 2015, the competent authority had not acted in the manner in which it had the responsibility to do so at that time (to remove the dog from his guardian and to prevent him from get another one and say, just at least, keep a close eye on him) the chances of survival of Mrs. Vadnais, would have been excellent.
“One wonders if this attack could have been avoided if, in 2015, the involved municipality had carried out the required follow-up and taken appropriate measures.”
On the other hand, the Coroner Lichtblau confirms that in his view, the guardian of the dog involved in the death of Mrs. Vadnais shows clear contradictions between his statement to the police and the information gathered on the scene on June 8, 2016, at the time of the incident.
1. “6 years ago his dog was attacked 3 times by other dogs and since then … the dog did not trust people he does not know!”
a) Is the dog confused between a dog and a human?
b) Has the dog been bitten by a human eventually?
c) Since the October 2015 incident, has the dog ever seen Madame Vadnais?
2. “the dog wears a muzzle inside … so …
a) Why was he wearing a muzzle inside, since the bylaw did not even require it?
b) If it is true that the dog was wearing a muzzle inside, is it not because his guardian was afraid of it?
c) How was he able to remove it?
d) How was he able to get out of the house and bite, Mrs. Vadnais?
a) “Yet, has the dog not been attacked 3 times by other dogs, so should not he be anxious and restless with other dogs?”
4. “take good care of his dog, walk him and get him to exercise, while adding … that he leaves his dog often alone in a cage outside during 8 hours!”
a) Is this the behaviour of a responsible guardian or someone who mistreats an animal?
It seems quite obvious that the guardian of the dog would have tried to fool the authorities and especially that it demonstrated the signals of someone who uses his dog as protection and that the dog is the one who certainly has the testicles that he does not have himself!
I submit that the guardian of the dog also has a share of responsibility in the death of Mrs. Vadnais, in particular, with the facts emerging from the coroner and probably also by the police!
So why were there no criminal charges laid against him?