“Tyson 4” the Pitbull wins the first and biggest round against the City of Montreal in Superior Court. The City of Montreal wanted to euthanize “Tyson 4” because he bit and injured another dog. First the City ordered a 90 day muzzle order, only to replace said order one week later for a euthanasia order. The City claimed it would seize “Tyson 4” after 72 hours if he wasn’t executed. Of course Sophie didn’t comply, told the City they would need to find him, while they replied with the threat of daily fines for each day his execution wasn’t proven, as they gave Sophie the option to select the method of euthanasia (her own vet)  versus sending him to the Berger Blanc.

Knowing the City of Montreal “had” the power to seize without a warrant signed by a Judge to authorize such search & seizure, Sophie made “Tyson 4” jump (hidden on the Island, yet out of the City’s reach). Sophie filed a Motion in Superior Court asking the Courts to « DECLARE unconstitutional the sections of the City of Montreal By-Law concerning Dog and Animal Control, R.B.C.M. c. C-10, notably sections 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22, which empower officials of the Respondent to enter a domicile and/or seize or euthanize a dog without warrant or due process ; » accompanied with a Stay of Execution against the euthanasia order so that “Tyson 4” could come out of hiding.

The first Judge allowed the case against the City, and issued an order that Sophie could take “Tyson 4” out of hiding for as long as he wore a muzzle at all times when in public or around other dogs, until his trial date. The second Judge, “trial Judge” heard the case which lasted 2 days and ruled in favor of “Tyson 4”, setting a precedent against the City of Montreal.

CONCLUSION

[137] In conclusion, the Tribunal want’s to underline that the case isn’t about if the dog is a danger to the public. That decision would be up to the municipal authorities. All tough before issuing such order, the City does need to respect the fundamental rules found in the Civil and Penal Code of Procedures, which wasn’t done in this present case.

[138] The Tribunal is therefore sensitive of the facts that Tyson’s behavior does justify the worries the City has. The Tribunal therefore takes notice of the agreement that Sophie is willing to keep the dog muzzled at all times when he is outside of his residence. For this agreement to be upheld, Sophie won’t be allowed to adopt out or dispose of “Tyson 4”.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT :

[139] WELCOMES in part the motion;

[140] SQUASHES the euthanasia order issued in virtue of article 19 of By-Law concerning Dog and Animal Control, R.B.C.M. c. C-10, issued on the 14th of July 2010 targeting the male dog named “Tyson 4”;

[141] SQUASHES the fines issued to the Plaintiff for not having conformed to this euthanasia order within the delayed time;

[142] ORDERS the Plaintiff to comply with her agreement to keep the dog muzzled at all times when he is outside of his residence and ORDERS her to conform to it;

[143] ORDERS the Plaintiff not to get rid of the dog in question;

[144] DECLARES  invalid and null the words « saisir au domicile de son gardien » found in articles 12, 16, 25, 29 of the Règlement sur le contrôle des chiens et autres animaux (R.R.V.M. c. C-10);

With this jurisprudence, why hasn’t the City re-written it’s By-Law? They keep issuing these bogus letters claiming to be legal euthanasia orders, when in fact it’s not even worth the paper it’s printed on.

Sophie now decided to sue the City of Montreal $25 a day for the boarding fees incurred while “Tyson 4” was in hiding. The City refused to pay a $3,000 bill without knowing where “Tyson 4” was boarded. That is not for them to know, so a Judge will decide if the City has a right to know or not. Sophie is now asking for $6,000, $3,000 in fees, another $3,000 in punitive damages for a violation of her Human Rights.

The City claims this Judgement is only applicable for Tyson 4’s case, and therefore not valid towards any other euthanasia order the City is handing out.  With that said, Sophie has offered help for those willing to fight the City in Court. Since this Judgement, we are aware of 3 other cases that might end up in Superior Court against the City.