Sophie Cognyl-Fournier

vs.

City of Montreal

April 11,12,13 – 2011

Sophie’s Arguments

• Sophie’s expert witness proved that Tyson 4 was not a danger to humans, however because he was not properly socialized at a young age he’s not good with all dogs.
• Sophie’s lawyer proved everything Sophie said and did, by putting her and the inspector on the stand.
• Sophie’s lawyer proved the City did not make the necessary changes in the administration process since 2007 (The Renegad case – Mario Paquet vs City of Montreal), and that the same process was used on Sophie in 2010. The Judge had ruled it illegal in 2007 and that Renegad had been saved from euthanasia after biting a Montreal Police officer on the leg.
• Sophie’s lawyer argued that if a dog is property it can’t be both the public and property. So how could property attacking a dog that is property be considered the public as the by-law states.
• Sophie’s lawyer argued that if a dog is property, seizure requires expropriation laws as stated in the Quebec Charter of Rights, making it one’s civil right to own property. Therefore, as if it was land, a car or any property, she has to be compensated for “it” if legally taken away.
• Sophie’s lawyer proved that the City had preformed illegal searches in her domicile since 2003 and that her domicile was her castle and that the city could not breech it without due process, as it is her constitutional right given to all Quebec citizens by the Quebec and Canadian Charter of Rights.
• Sophie’s lawyer argued only the Attorney General of Quebec can contest the constitutional issues that would require those arguments void and null, however he refused to exercise that right, thus this court had to hear these arguments.

City’s Arguments

• The City’s lawyers argued that Sophie could not fight the constitutional issues in this case and court, but in fact she could because the Attorney General of Quebec refused to exercise his right to defend the Charter of Quebec, so they argued on a 30 day limit from when Sophie’s lawyer came into the picture and sent an amended notice to the Attorney General. Sophie was representing herself so they argued they should have more time to prepare this case against a lawyer.
• The City’s lawyers argued that it is too late for Sophie to contest this by-law based on it’s constitutional breech of rights, since it would have had to be done in a reasonable delay when it was created (1999) to protect the city from previous illegal search and seizures (in case this Judge was to rule it unconstitutional).
• The City’s lawyers argued that this by-law was constitutional because they had to protect the “public”, and they had the right to breech people’s constitutional rights in prevention that someone refused to obey their order, therefore allowing search and seizure without a warrant and police presence and without due process (48hrs notice) in case the “dog” was to disappear, and that in this case Tyson 4 had disappeared.

Notes: The Judge hearing this case happens to be the same Judge that heard the Mario Paquet case in 2007. The City called Sophie a responsible pet owner and never argued that Tyson 4 should still be killed, they argued that it was their legal right and not unconstitutional.

The judge was forced to go into deliberations by the City.

L’interrogatoire sur l’affidavit de Sophie le 25 Novembre 2010