CODERRE admin: responsible for the death of Christiane Vadnais? (5/6)

Home / Admin Stories / CODERRE admin: responsible for the death of Christiane Vadnais? (5/6)
(Here is Article 5) (Montreal, November 3, 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!


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

This is the question that annoys me seriously!

In fact, according to the coroner’s report (which incidentally was already in the possession of the police), why did the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions not file an indictment against him…the guardian of the animal?

Was the “DPCP” afraid of a civil suit? Or was he afraid of not being able to prove according to the applicable standards, the responsibility, even by virtue of some form of negligence by his guardian, because after all in Quebec, is it not the human being responsible for the acts and actions animals that are under his authority?

However, even today we learn in the news that the owner of two “pit bulls” who have bitten a girl will face a criminal negligence charge, before the Court in the judicial district of Longueuil, while the mother of the dogs’ guardian who is 72 years old (!), has admitted her guilt also to criminal negligence charges, in the same situation!

See “Guilty of Neglect for a Pitbull Attack

So, is the criminal negligence with dogs biting on the South Shore different from that demonstrated in Montreal? Or does the law apply differently in Montreal than on the South Shore?

Yet the circumstances are quite similar, loss / lack of control over dogs, demonstration of aggression and bite on a human. What more was needed in the case of the guardian of the dog involved in the incident of Mrs. Vadnais?
A series of questions comes to mind:

a) Why Mrs. Vadnais’s family did not insist that the guardian of the animal be criminally charged?

b) Why did Mrs. Vadnais’ family not sue the City of Montreal in civil courts? Was it not informed of all the details of the case like the fact that a police report was produced in October 2015, following a double bite, of the same dog, at that time?

c) Has there been any form of out-of-court settlement discussion between the city of Montreal and Ms. Vadnais’s family? If so, what are the terms?

d) What did Mayor Coderre tell Ms. Vadnais’ family, for it  to get so quickly behind the implementation of the current by-law at the City of Montreal?

Will these answers be just as long to get as others concerning certain expenses for the 375th anniversary of Montreal?

Tomorrow follows the next part of our analysis,

“The Guy,”

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!