Transcript of Trial in Provincial Court of Dartmouth, March 2 and 16, 2012

CANADA
PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
2012 Case # 2234849-851
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- versus -
FRANCESCA ROGIER
TRANSCRIPT
HEARD BEFORE: The Honourable Judge Flora Buchan, J.P.C.
PLACE HEARD: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
DATES HEARD: March 2 and 16, 2012
COUNSEL: Ms. Katherine Salsman, for the Crown
Ms. Francesca Rogier, self-represented
VERBATIM INC. - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1976
2
INDEX
PAGE
MARCH 2, 2012
OPENING REMARKS/PRELIMINARY MATTERS ................ 6
CATHERINE SIMMS
Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............. 9
TYSON SIMMS
Direct Examination By Ms. Salsman .............. 29
MICHELLE STEEN
Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman .............. 49
VOIR DIRE COMMENCES
Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman on Voir Dire . 51
SUBMISSION ON VOIR DIRE BY MS. SALSMAN ............... 58
TRIAL-IN-CHIEF
DISCUSSION ........................................... 60
CST. SHELLEY MEWS

Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman .............. 67
Cross-Examination by Ms Rogier .................. 70
TYSON SIMMS
Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................. 77

3
INDEX (Cont'd.)
Page
CATHERINE SIMMS
Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............ 161
VALERIE RODGER
Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............... 166
MARCH 16, 2012
VALERIE RODGER
Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier (Cont'd.) ....... 209
Examination by the Court ........................ 251
MICHELLE STEEN
Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................ 255
Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ........... 280
SUSAN JORDAN
Direct Examination re Qualifications

by Ms. Rogier ................................... 286
QUALIFIED AS EXPERT .................................. 290
Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier ................ 291
Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman ................ 328
Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier ............. 335

4
INDEX (Cont'd.)
PAGE
DISCUSSION .......................................... 339
SUBMISSION BY MS. SALSMAN ........................... 347
FRANCESCA ROGIER
Direct Evidence ................................. 365
Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman ................ 408
SUBMISSION BY MS. ROGIER ............................. 460
REPLY BY MS. SALSMAN ................................. 479
REPLY BY MS. ROGIER .................................. 482
DISCUSSION ........................................... 485

5
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Photos taken by Cst. Mews 21
2 Photos of Lucy's injuries 25
VD-1 CD of phone calls to dispatch/call centre 53
Vd-2 Transcript of phone calls part 1 55
Vd-3 Transcript of phone calls part 2 56
3 Vet bill 161
4 Warrant to seize 168
5 HRM Animal Services muzzle order 169
6 Decision on Sentencing on Previous Trial 170
7 Photo of Brindi inside pound 171
8 Photos of Brindi at SPCA party 174
9 Information for warrant to seize 182
10 Transcript of Katie Simms RCMP statement 204
11 HRM By-law A-300 respecting animals 282
12 HRM Municipality Charter dog By-law 282

13 Photo of two dogs (Brindi, small terrier) 309
14 Photo of Rogier driveway area 386
15 Simms attachment C, diagram of property 387
16 Crown's 2010 Supreme Court motion brief 404

6
1 MARCH 2, 2012
3 MATTER COMMENCED (TIME: 09:43 HRS)
5 THE CLERK: Francesca Rogier.
6 I just got a message from the Admin office that she (has pushed?)
7 her car in the ditch and she will be here in an hour.
8 THE COURT: Well, that's most unfortunate. I don't know.
9 I suppose we'll ... I'll have Ms. Rogier ... did she just call now?
10 THE CLERK: I just got the message ...
11 THE COURT: Just got ...
12 THE CLERK: ... (inaudible)
13 THE COURT: Just got right now, so an hour brings us almost
14 quarter to 11. So I suppose I should apologize to the witnesses and
15 so on. I think there's nothing else we can do but allow her ... she
16 has contacted the Court, allow her the opportunity to arrive at

17 quarter to 11 and so we'll adjourn until then. Sorry about that
18 everybody, thank you so much.
19 MATTER ADJOURNED (TIME: 09:44 HRS)
20 MATTER RECONVENES (TIME: 10:59 HRS)
21 THE COURT: Thanks very much, everyone. All right. I

7
OPENING REMARKS/PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1 understand Ms. Rogier has still has not appeared and it's basically
2 almost 11:00 now and no further word. And the witnesses are starting
3 to be greatly inconvenienced, and I just look to the Crown for the
4 Crown's wish to ...
5 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, Your Honour, we are prepared to proceed ex
6 parte.
7 THE COURT: All right. I would agree that that would be
8 appropriate. So we can proceed with the trial.
9 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. As a preliminary
10 motion I would ask for an order excluding witnesses.
11 THE COURT: All right. I would just order that but for the
12 first witness of the Crown, if you'd be kind ... all witnesses would
13 be kind enough to wait out in the hall until you are called to give
14 your testimony at that time.
15 (inaudible background comments)
16 Thank you, Sheriff.
17 SHERIFF: You're welcome.

18 THE CLERK: Do you (want to?) call your first witness?
19 MS. SALSMAN: I believe that Officer Rodger is just bringing
20 her in.
21 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you so much.

8
OPENING REMARKS/PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1 MS. SALSMAN: I think that she is out there with an infant,
2 so it may be taking ...
3 THE COURT: I know and I am sorry, I didn't realize that
4 there was a young one, as well being inconvenienced here. Just come
5 on forward and I will get you sworn or solemnly affirmed.
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9
1 CATHERINE SIMMS, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: Thank you. Just have a seat here. Just state
4 your name for the record and spell your last name, please.
5 A. My name is Catherine Simms. And my last name is spelled
6 S-I-M-M-S.
7
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Ms. Simms. Where do you reside?
11 A. I reside at 20 Pine Lane in East Chezzetcook, Halifax
12 Regional Municipality.
13 Q. And, how long have you lived there?
14 A. For the last two and a half years.
15 Q. And were you living there on September 14, 2010?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did you make a complaint to HRM regarding events that

18 took place on that day?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Could you tell the Court what happened that day that led
21 to you making that complaint.

10
CATHERINE SIMMS, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 A. Um, it was that evening. My husband and I went for a walk
2 with our dog and our dog ... on our way returning from our walk our
3 dog was attacked by Francesca Rogier's dog, Brindi and that led to
4 our report.
5 Q. Okay. Now where were you walk ...
6 THE COURT: If you don't mind, I'm just going to ask you to
7 keep your voice elevated. We have got that annoying fan above our
8 heads, here.
9 A. Okay, yeah.
10 THE COURT: And I appreciate that, so we can all hear.
11 Thank you so much.
12 MS. SALSMAN: So where were you walking to that day?
13 A. Um, we were talking, we left our house and we live up the
14 road from Ms. Rogier and we proceeded down the road towards her home.
15 We walked past her home and turned left down the Mines Road, which
16 is on the east side of East Chezzetcook Road, and then we turned around
17 not too far up the Mines Road and proceeded back up the street, kind
18 of heading towards our home. And so we were on our way back up when
19 the incident occurred.
20 Q. And where were you exactly when the incident occurred?
21 A. We were on the west side of the East Chezzetcook Road, which

11
1 was the side Ms. Rogier lives on, and we were about, like, 10 to 12
2 feet prior to her driveway. I was walking on the gravel and holding
3 a flashlight. My husband was walking on the pavement and Lucy, our
4 dog, was on the pavement. He was ... he had her on a leash and she
5 was closest to the centre line.
6 Q. And then what happened?

7 A. So then, as we were proceeding, a car was coming down the
8 road and it kind of, as it got closer to us, it kind of sped up a
9 little bit to turn into Ms. Rogier's driveway. Almost like it didn't
10 ... it saw people and it didn't want to have to stop and wait for
11 us to walk by the driveway before they could turn in. So it turned
12 it, and as soon as it turned in, I heard a bark and we knew it was
13 Ms. Rogier's dog. We assumed it was. And it was like, just as the
14 car came to a halt, the dog was coming out the rear driver's side
15 window at us and we really didn't have any time to respond. Ms.
16 Rogier wasn't even out of her vehicle. The dog was on our dog
17 attacking it.
18 Q. Okay, and when you say it was attacking it, what was it
19 doing?
20 A. Well, it was like over top of her and our dog was kind of
21 huddled down and there was growling and yelping and so ...
12
1 Q. Okay, and the dog that came out the window that you
2 described, was that a dog that you recognized?
3 A. It was ... I recognized it as Brindi and I described it
4 in my statement as sort of like a mixed breed shepherdy-looking dog
5 that's slightly bigger than Lucy. Lucy is about 44 pounds. That
6 dog was bigger than her. Darker, darker than our dog.
7 Q. Okay, and what happened after Brindi was on top of your
8 dog?
9 A. I am sorry, I am just getting a ... and also following the
10 incident Ms. Rogier identified herself and that it was her dog, as
11 well, so that kind of confirmed that it was her dog. Can you repeat
12 that question, please?
13 Q. What happened ... so at this point you described that the
14 dog was on top of your dog. What happened next?
15 A. My husband and I ... well, when the dog was approaching
16 our dog we started yelling, AHey, hey, hey,@ trying to like stop it
17 and scare it off and it ... it got onto our dog and we both just started
18 kicking the dog to try to get it off of our dog, Lucy. And it ...
19 because it was on top and it was so much larger, it didn't even occur
20 to me not to, like I said, to worry about kicking our own dog because
21 it was very evident which dog was on top, right. So we just starting
13
1 kicking the dog, and I was worried and screaming. I thought Lucy
2 was going to die because it was looking and sounding very vicious,
3 the ... the kind of the brawl, right. And Lucy is a puppy, and never,
4 she didn't really even have any time to know what was happening
5 because it was a vehicle. And the next thing she knew, there was
6 a dog on her. So and where it was dark, she really had no time to
7 even know. So we were just ... just kicking the dog, the two of us,
8 and finally it, I don't know what happened but our dog ran up the
9 street yelping and I ran after our dog.
10 Ms. Rogier, the whole time, was kind of standing back by her
11 car sort of just watching helplessly the incident kind of unfold and
12 ... So then I went running after Lucy because I was worried that she
13 was going to get hit by a car, that she wouldn't come back. She ran
14 up the road like kind of towards our home and over towards the east
15 side of the road. And so I kind of chased her up the middle of the
16 road and then calling her and she did end up coming to me and that
17 was more kind of in front of my parents' home, which is the house

18 following Ms. Rogier's home going up the street, so. And then I
19 got her on the centre line and Tyson appeared and he had her leash
20 and her Halti in his hand. She must have gotten out of it during
21 the struggle and ran up. And so we re-fastened that to her and tried
14
1 to bring her over to the side of the road to get her off the pavement,
2 and we didn't quite get off the pavement, we were more on the west
3 side of the street but still on the pavement when we were sort of
4 inspecting her.
5 Q. Okay, and what happened after that.
6 A. Ms. Rogier came over. Her dog was no longer there. I

7 didn't see anybody else there aside from Ms. Rogier, myself, my
8 husband and our dog and Brindi, but I am assuming she put the dog
9 in the house, or something. And so she came over, she knelt down,
10 she seemed concerned. She apologized and she said, AYou know, I am
11 so sorry. It's not the dog's fault, it's my fault,@ or something like
12 that and she said, AYou must know who I am. I fought HRM for two
13 years,A and she said, APlease don't report this. They are going to
14 kill my dog if you report this." And so it kind of went from being
15 very concerned and she was saying, "Oh, she looks okay, she looks
16 okay,@ or like your dog is ... you know, AIs your dog okay? It looks
17 okay,@ and then started all this stuff about please don't report this.
18 And asked us our names and I said our names were Katy and Tyson
19 Simms, and she kind of looked confused. I don't think she know who
20 we were and I said ... she just kind of was stuck on, "Please, you
21 know, don't report this," and I said, AWell, I don't know, I don't
15
1 know if my dog is okay. I need to get her in the light and see.@ And
2 so then there was kind of no, purpose of continuing our discussion
3 because she was really just fixed on this not reporting it, and your
4 dog is okay and all this kind of stuff.
5 And we said, well, we don't know. We weren't going to lie and
6 say, no, we won't report this, don't worry about it. I said I don't
7 know if I am going to report this. I need to see. So then we ...
8 that's when we put the collar and things back on the dog, actually,
9 and then we started walking away while she was still there. And she
10 said, she kind of was then elevating her voice, kind of yelling to
11 us up the road saying, AThey are going to kill my dog. I hope you
12 can live with yourself," and those sorts of comments, and which I
13 lost my patience and turned around and told her ... do you need the
14 exact language I used?
15 Q. Say what you said.
16 A. I said something along the lines of, "Your fucking dog
17 jumped out a fucking car window and attacked my dog. I am going to

18 report this. And, I said ... and at some point, too, she yelled up
19 again, or it might have been prior to that and said something about,
20 you know, them killing my dog and I said something like, Well, maybe
21 your dog should die. Or, maybe your dog should be put down, or
16
1 something like that. It was just kind of like, I probably shouldn't
2 have responded but it was just kind of egging me on and I was emotional
3 and upset and I ... and I yelled back. Anyway and so that's kind
4 of what happened, and then we just kept walking away. We didn't walk
5 up my parents driveway because I didn't want her to follow us, and
6 I didn't want her to connect my parents to the incident, because they

7 are neighbours. So we proceeded up the next ... the next driveway
8 that belongs to someone who lives kind of back behind my parents,
9 but the driveway runs parallel to the property. We walked up that
10 driveway. We crossed over to my parents' backyard and went inside
11 and began the reporting process.
12 Q. So the woman that you were talking to on the side of the
13 road that day, do you know who she is?
14 A. Yes, Francesca Rogier.
15 Q. And how is it that you are familiar with her?
16 A. Well, I have seen her at her home and I have seen her in
17 the media, but I have also actually given her car a jump in the past.
18 Prior to even having my dog, you know, we were down, my husband and
19 I, before he was my husband, you know. She was living there I think
20 just before my parents moved in there, and so, you know, we kind of
21 knew her as their neighbour but had never really had much conversation
17
1 with her other than giving her car a jump one day.
2 Q. Okay, what time of day was it when this was happening.
3 A. We Left our home around 8:00 pm when we went on our walk,
4 so I think it was around like 20 to 9 p.m. that evening when everything
5 kind of occurred.
6 Q. Okay, and was it light or dark out.

7 A. It was dark.
8 Q. And what was the weather like?
9 A. I think it was a nice night and I was wearing like, fleece
10 kind of sweat pants and a fleece kind of hoodie, but I don't remember
11 it being like very cold or anything, it might have just been nice
12 and cool.
13 Q. Okay, and when the attack occurred, where were you relative
14 to the shoulder and road and actual property.
15 A. We were on the pavement and we were probably a little bit
16 closer to her property than we were ... let me see, we were, like
17 we were about ten to 12 feet at first, and then ... and then we all
18 kind of ... when it all happened it kind of brought ... the dogs kind
19 of brought us more out into the middle of the road and we were still
20 probably maybe, maybe more like five feet from her driveway in the
21 middle of the road, because the dogs kind of just, when they ... that
18
1 would be my best guess.
2 Q. Now could you see if the dog, Brindi, was wearing any sort
3 of a leash?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And could you see if it was wearing any sort of a ...
6 A. I could see, and there was no leash.

7 Q. Okay. Was the dog wearing any sort of a muzzle?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did it appear to have any sort of device on it to control
10 it?
11 A. Not that I recall, it might have had a collar, I am not
12 sure.
13 Q. Okay. Now tell us about Lucy. What kind of dog is she?
14 A. Lucy is a beagle-lab mix. She ... she at that time she
15 was around a year and a half old, a year old. We have a younger puppy
16 in the home at that time, we had a six-month old puppy in the home
17 as well, but we didn't have him with us that night, thank goodness.
18 And she's ... she's kind of goldish colour with some brown and white
19 markings, kind of has big velvety ears, sort of like beagle'ish kind
20 of ears and kind of hazel eyes. She is about 44 pounds. So she is
21 a medium-sized dog. She is quite fit. And she has a really nice
19
1 demeanour. She is, you know, prior to this incident she whenever,
2 you know, we'd meet other animals or dogs on the street, she would
3 kind of like ... she would have her tail wagging and she would roll
4 over on her back and be very submissive, I guess, would be the word.
5 Just a friendly dog. Really liked kids, and ...
6 Q. Had Lucy before this ever been involved in any other fights
7 or ...
8 A. Never, never.
9 Q. And how were you controlling Lucy that night?
10 A. We had her on a leash. It was a purple leash, kind of like
11 a ... it was a thick, wide leash and she had on a black Halti, which
12 is used for kind of controlling the lead, so it kind of ... it goes
13 around her snout and around her neck and then the leash attaches to
14 her, kind of like a device on her chin, and it kind of just helps
15 us kind of move her head away from the side of the road, because she
16 has a beagle personality too that is sniffing all the time, and so
17 it just helps us to walk easier.

18 Q. Okay. And so what's your parents' address?
19 A. 772 East Chezzetcook Road.
20 Q. And do you know Ms. Rogier's address?
21 A. Not off the top of my head.

20
1 Q. Okay, but where is their home relative to her home?
2 A. Their home, if you are going down the road, towards the
3 end of the road, their home is just before Ms. Rogier's home and their
4 house is positioned up kind of on a hill, they have kind of a longer
5 driveway, so her house and yard is beside their driveway and the front
6 of their yard, but their houses are a little bit of a distance away
7 from each other.
8 Q. Now you said you went up the property, the driveway next
9 to your parents' house, and then what did you do after that?
10 A. I went in the house and my dad was there and I was upset
11 and tearful and really anxious and my heart was pounding and I said,
12 ABrindi just attacked Lucy, and I am calling it, I'm going to report
13 it," and I went and grabbed the phone book and I started fanning
14 through it trying to find the right number to call. And I ended up
15 calling Advance Wildlife Control, I think they are called. I don't
16 know who to call.
17 So, anyway, I called them and I spoke to a man and kind of rattled
18 off what had happened and he said that it wasn't the appropriate place
19 to call and that I needed to call Animal Services in the morning when
20 they opened. And I asked him if it would be appropriate to call the
21 police, because I felt like I had to do something that night. Because

21
1 this has been a number of dogs now, and I didn't like, it just, I
2 needed to do something about it. And he said, you know that would
3 be fine if I wanted to do that, it was up to me. So I said, Okay.
4 Okay, so we called the non-emergency number of the police and they
5 sent a member over, a RCMP member over, an RCMP member, Shelley Mews
6 and she was there quite quickly. I was surprised I think within like
7 20 minutes she showed up and she came in the house and we told her,
8 kind of, what had happened, and at that time we hadn't noticed
9 anything on Lucy. We hadn't even really inspected her. We just came
10 in the house and started kind of trying to call. But while she was
11 there it was the first time we kind of, I think it might have been
12 my dad noticed in the light, or maybe Ms. Mews noticed some blood
13 on Lucy and that's when we looked at Lucy and we noticed the first
14 ... the bite mark on her shoulder.
15 And we took a photo in front of Ms. Mews, and then Ms. Mews said
16 that she was going to go down to see Ms. Rogier, and left the house.
17 Q. Okay. I'm going to tender some photographs as Exhibit 1.

18 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
19
20 EXHIBIT 1 - PHOTOGRAPHS, MARKED AND ENTERED
21
22
1 MS. SALSMAN: I am going to show you some photographs. Do you
2 recognize these pictures? Take a moment to look them.
3 A. Yeah, I recognize them.
4 Q. Who took these pictures?
5 A. I am going to ... I would think mostly me. The only one
6 I wonder about is this first one where I think, this is my hand, so

7 I am wondering ... I might have taken it with my other hand. But
8 I am pretty sure I took the pictures.
9 Q. Okay, and when were they taken?
10 A. They were taken that night, let me just double check
11 everything. Yeah, they were taken that night.
12 Q. Okay, and could you go through them one by one and describe
13 to the Court what they depict?
14 A. Yeah. The only thing I am just trying to figure out right
15 here is that some of the flooring is different. So and I know that
16 when we got home after we left my parents we went to treat Lucy's
17 wound with a ... some salt water and that's when we noticed another
18 scrape one ... I forget if it was a scrape behind her ear or the scrape
19 on her back. So I think maybe this wood flooring on the first picture
20 might be at our home, the same night. And that ... this looks like,
21 I think it's my hand and I think this would be Tyson's hands looking
23
1 at Lucy's bite there on her shoulder. And then this second picture
2 with the tile flooring in the background is at my parents' kitchen.
3 So this would have been when the officer was there, and this is again,
4 this is my dad's hands. And, he is kind of pulling the fur away so
5 you can see her bite mark there on her shoulder.
6 This is, the third picture is again is my dad's hands kind of

7 just giving some kind of perspective of the puncture wound there,
8 on Lucy's shoulder.
9 Okay, this is the fourth picture. This again looks like my
10 dad's hands and this looks like the ... there was like a puncture
11 would on one side of her shoulder and on the other side of her shoulder
12 there was like a larger area and it was, looked like more of a ...
13 it wasn't like a puncture the way this side was. It was more like
14 a scrape, kind of, and the same behind her ear, there was a big scrape,
15 too. So I am not sure if this one, just the way the fur is, I think
16 might be the scrape on her back.
17 And then the next picture, again, is I think my dad's hands

18 showing Lucy's wound and then the final picture, is again, I believe,
19 I am pretty sure that's my dad's hands. I am not quite sure whose
20 hands, it is quite blown up there, so just showing the wound on Lucy.
21 Q. Okay. So after the photographs were taken, what did you

24
1 do?
2 A. At my parents, after we took the photographs and Ms. Mews
3 left, my mom had returned home during all of this, she worked late
4 from work, and she drove us home because we didn't want to walk the
5 rest of the way. And we actually before we left we called my aunt
6 to find out if she had some Polysporin, because we were thinking about
7 how we were going to treat her little wound, so and then she didn't
8 have any, so we decided to just do salt water when we got home, we'd
9 bring her to the vet in the morning. So my mom drove us home and
10 we were nosy and we went down the street before we proceeded home
11 to see if Ms. Mews had, was at Ms. Rogier's home. So we went down
12 the Mines Road, turned around and came back and went, proceeded home
13 and my mom dropped us off and then we just treated Lucy's wounds.
14 I think then we noticed the other scrape, I forget if it was the scrape
15 behind her ear or on her back that we noticed at our home, and took
16 pictures, and then we just kind of babied her and let her sleep.
17 Q. Okay, and what did you do the next day?

18 A. The next morning, I think 8:00 in the morning, I was over
19 to the vet and I saw, I think her name is Frances Minty, is the vet
20 at the Porter's ... the Eastern Shore Veterinary Clinic and Lucy had
21 an exam. And the outcome of the exam was that ... she shaved her
25
1 over her wounds and we took better photos without the fur, and she
2 confirmed that it was a puncture wound from a tooth and she treated
3 her with antibiotics to ensure that there would be no infection and
4 just kind of told us how to care for her and things like that.
5 Q. I am going to show you some more photographs.
6 THE CLERK: ... (inaudible) as Exhibit 2.

7
8 EXHIBIT 2 B PHOTOS OF LUCY'S INJURIES, MARKED AND ENTERED
10 MS. SALSMAN: I'm going to show you these photographs.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Do you recognize these pictures.
13 A. I do, yeah. These are ... this is Lucy's back and the top
14 of the photo is kind of going towards her head, so this is kind of
15 coming down her ... the back of her neck and her shoulder area.
16 Q. Okay, so when were these photographs taken?
17 A. These, I believe are ... yeah, these are at the vet. Well,
18 now halfway through. Some of them are at the vet and some of them
19 are at my home.
20 Q. Okay, and who took them?
21 A. I took them.
26
1 Q. Did you want to go through the pictures one by one and
2 describe what they depict?
3 A. Yeah. The first photo is at the vet. It is of Lucy's
4 shoulder and on the left-hand side is the scrape I was kind of talking
5 about. On the right-hand side is the puncture wound, and like, in
6 person it looked like almost like someone had taken a pencil through
7 kind of like the top layer of her fat, so that kind of, is that picture,
8 there. The second picture is at the vet and that's the vet's arm
9 holding Lucy and that's her puncture wound. The third picture,
10 again, is of the puncture wound. It is just kind of a closer up in
11 the vet's arms holding her there. The fourth picture, again, is
12 still at the vet and that's the scrape mark.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. The fifth picture, is again, of the scrape mark on her left
15 side. The sixth picture is really not the best picture, but that
16 is behind her ear, the other scrape mark, that she had kind of had
17 behind her ear. And then, I forget what number I am on now, six or
18 seven here. There is our two dogs at our home and that's just to
19 kind of give more perspective of Lucy's injuries there.
20 And again the next picture is of the same, kind of giving you
21 an idea of the size of her wounds and that's a really cute picture
27
1 of the two dogs. I don't know what that is to give a perspective
2 of, but it may be the size difference, I don't know, and then in the
3 last picture, again, is of Lucy's back, the wounds on her back.
4 Q. Okay. How long did it take for the wounds to heal?
5 A. I ... I don't remember exactly. I don't ... I can't quite
6 answer that, because I don't exactly remember. I know for quite a

7 while she was very sensitive, for probably a few months and even still
8 she is like, if my husband is kind of playing around with them and
9 stuff, and he touches her up there sometimes she will kind of react,
10 kind of like a shudder or whatever, and she is ... she's ... definitely
11 kind of a sensitive area whether it's before from tenderness, and
12 now from just a history, there, like kind of mentally or
13 emotionally there is repercussions.
14 Q. And did these events take place in the Halifax Regional
15 Municipality?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, those are my questions, thank you.

18 THE COURT: Thank you so much ma'am, you may step down.
19 MS. SIMMS: Thank you.
20
21 WITNESS WITHDRAWS (11:31 HRS)

28
1 MS. SALSMAN: All right. Our next witness will be Tyson
2 Simms.
3 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
4 MS. SALSMAN: Would you mind just asking him to come in?
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
29
1 TYSON SIMMS, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: Just have a seat. Just state your name for the
4 record, and spell your last name, please.
5 A. It's Tyson Simms. S-I-M-M-S.
9 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Simms. Where do you reside?
10 A. 20 Pine Lane. That's in East Chezzetcook.
11 Q. And who do you live with there?
12 A. My wife, Catherine Simms.
13 Q. And how long have you lived there?
14 A. Approximately two years.
15 Q. And how are you employed?
16 A. I work with HRM.

17 Q. And what do you do for them?
18 A. I work with Planning Services as a planner to the, I guess,
19 the central region, which is the Sackville office.
20 Q. And, how long have you been working there?
21 A. Since around October of '09.

30
TYSON SIMMS, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 Q. Now did you make a complaint to HRM regarding an incident
2 on September 14, 2010?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What happened that day that lead to you making that
5 complaint?
6 A. So that evening, I guess, the evening of September 14th

7 around 8:00, my wife and I decided to walk our dog Lucy. So we walked
8 from our residence at 20 Pine Lane up to the end of our lane to East
9 Chezzetcook Road. We proceeded to walk to the Mines Road. See you
10 have two options when you walk down the road. You either walk towards
11 the highway or you walk down towards the Mines Road, so we decided
12 to walk that evening down the Mines Road. And when we got to the
13 Mines Road, we said, well, let's walk a little bit further and we
14 walked up so far and then we started making our way back.
15 So on our way back, we are on the East Chezzetcook Road and we
16 are walking facing traffic and it was getting dark. It was dark at
17 that point and we had a light, because people tend to drive fairly
18 fast on that road, so people could see us. And as she got close to,
19 I am not certain of the address, but it is the home that's next to
20 my in-laws' house, so this is the home where this incident took place.
21 As we got close to that house, and more so the driveway, a car was
31
1 approaching and had started to signal that it was going to turn in,
2 so my wife and I and the dog we kind of took note of that. And the
3 car pulled into the driveway, but not entirely, you know,
4 unfortunately the car was kind of standing out because there was
5 another car in the driveway at the time. And when the car came in
6 I could hear barking from a dog, and my wife and I noticed that there
7 was a dog in the back of the car, back ... you know, barking in the
8 back window, the dog proceeded to escape through the window and ran
9 towards our dog, and sort of engaged our dog into a scuffle, a fight.
10 So that's the incident, I guess.
11 Q. And the dog that you saw come out the window, could you
12 describe that dog?
13 A. Yeah, it was like a, you know, a mixed Shepherd breed dog.
14 It was probably about 50 pounds, a medium sized dog. My dog is a
15 beagle lab mix. It was smaller than that dog, I guess. My dog is
16 about 25 pounds.
17 THE COURT: I am sorry, your voice just dropped there, a bit,

18 sir.
19 A. Sorry, my dog is about 25 B 30 pounds and this dog is about
20 50 pounds, I think. It was a dark, seem to be a Shepherd mix dog.
21 MS. SALSMAN: Was this a dog that you recognized?

32
1 Q. I had not seen the dog prior to that. I can't recall seeing
2 the dog prior to that. I was aware that there was a dog residing
3 at that residence. I was very much aware of Brindi, the dog just
4 through past media and just being aware of, you know, I guess the
5 news stories in the past and surrounding the owner of that dog. So,
6 you know, when the dog attacked I drew a conclusion that, you know,
7 that may be, you know, Brindi, the dog, yes, sure.
8 Q. Okay, so when the dog attacked, what exactly did it do?
9 A. So it ... the dog, jumped out of the window. It came
10 towards my wife and I and our dog. My dog kind of turtled. It got
11 in sort of a submissive pose and the Shepherd dog or Shepherd-mix
12 dog, it seemed to sort to grab on top of my dog, so it sort of engaged
13 it on top. It almost looked like it had walked into it, and the two
14 of them started kind of going in circles. It was hard to decipher
15 which dog was which but it was clearly evidence that that dog was
16 sort of on top of my dog and had it engaged, so, yeah.
17 Q. So what did you do next?

18 A. So, as the dog was approaching my dog, I should say, my
19 wife and I yelled, we screamed, we tried to scare the dog away. And
20 then once the dog engaged our dog, we started kicking the dog. We
21 were trying to forcibly remove the dog from ours.

33
1 Q. Okay. And did that have any effect?
2 A. No, we kicked the dog for about, it felt like about ten
3 seconds at least, I mean, it was going, the dog wouldn't let go. And
4 I am not absolutely certain what happened in terms of when the dog
5 let go of my dog. I can't recall if the owner of the dog had come
6 over and kind of removed it. I was very much concerned with getting
7 my dog out of that situation and what I do recall is that my dog did
8 get free and ran up the East Chezzetcook Road, about 30-40 feet up
9 the road. So, yeah, we tried to forcibly remove the dog.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. I can't ... I am not all that certain in terms of how it
12 was let go, or how it was freed, or if it was from the result of us
13 kicking it, or what happened in the scuffle. I can remember just
14 kicking the dog.
15 Q. Okay, and then what happened after Lucy ran up the road?
16 A. So our dog ran up the road. I am not entirely sure what
17 happened to the Shepherd dog. It was, I think, you know, it was

18 obviously removed, or the owner removed it, but I was concerned with
19 my dog. So I sort of started going in the direction my dog ran into
20 and I kneeled down and started calling my dog to come over. So, after
21 a few seconds, my dog was yelping, crying, you know like, it was
34
1 obviously distressed. So, my wife and I walked in that direction
2 and we kneeled down and the dog eventually had come to us so we could
3 take a look at her.
4 Q. Okay, and then what happened?
5 A. So at this point we were just trying to decipher if our
6 dog was injured or if it was okay. And, the owner of the Shepherd
7 dog came over and sort of kneeled down, and the first thing she asked
8 was whether or not our dog was okay. And so I recall, like, our reply
9 to that was, "Well, we are not sure." You know, obviously she is
10 distressed, you know, we have to ... and it was dark. So we couldn't
11 actually really see if, you know, if she was hurt or if she was really
12 bit at that time or anything. So the owner came over. She ... I
13 can't recall if she actually identified herself by her name, like
14 she made a comment that ... something along the lines of, You must
15 know who I am, you know, or something to the effect of, you know,
16 I have being trying to get my dog back for the last year or two years,
17 and then she made the comment that, you know, she was very apologetic
18 but she also made a comment that if we were to report the incident
19 that HRM would kill her dog.
20 So, my wife engaged in most of the conversation. I just tried
21 to be reserved. My intention was just to remove my dog from this

35
1 sort of scenario. So I wasn't really exchanging much with the dog
2 owner in terms of conversation. I believe she did ask who we were,
3 and she was trying to get information from us, but I was reserved
4 on that point and didn't really say much.
5 Q. Was the woman someone that you recognized?
6 A. Yeah, well, from ... I guess, you know, the time when she
7 knelt down and I saw her, I, you know, I guess I identified her as
8 Francesca Rogier. And I have never met Ms. Rogier in the past,
9 really. I never had any feelings that I can really recall in terms
10 of meeting her or anything, but I did kind of recognize her from
11 previous newscast and so on, with short brown hair. And you know,
12 I just made, you know, at that point I assumed it was her, as well,
13 because I was aware of, you know, Brindi, the dog and herself. And,
14 so, yeah, I assumed it was her and she seemed to sort of match the
15 description of what I had recalled from previous newscast.
16 Q. Okay. So when the incident took place, where were you in
17 the road relative to the side of the road and property.

18 A. What I recall is that when the car was coming in and turning
19 into the driveway, we were clearly in the right of way on the pavement.
20 Now, as the car was turning in, we kind of took note of that and we
21 moved to the shoulder of the road, I think, but we were still clearly
36
1 in the right of way of the road. When the incident actually ... when
2 the dog jumped out of the window and came towards our dog we were
3 clearly in the right of way. And when we were proceeding to kick
4 the Shepherd dog, you know, with the intent of removing it from our
5 dog, we were, I was standing on pavement. I remember that, I was
6 in the road, like right in the middle of the road ... of the right
7 of way. So the entire incident, from beginning to end, from the time
8 that the dog engaged our dog, the time that he reacted to it and the
9 time and that we looked at our dog and examined it and left, we were
10 always in the right of way of East Chezzetcook Road.
11 Q. The right of way ...
12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, just when to say, oh, you were
13 probably going to ask the same questions, were you, about the right
14 of way.
15 MS. SALSMAN: When you refer to the "right of way", what would
16 that be in laymen's terms?
17 A. It would be the shoulder of the road and you know the paved
18 portion of the road, the...
19 Q. Okay, so would that be a portion of Ms. Rogier's property
20 or...
21 A. No, no, no.

37
1 Q. Or of the...
2 A. No, I don't believe so. I mean, it's the paved roadway
3 and the very, you know, very small shoulder on the side of the road.
4 I mean this is an old highway, right. The incident, you know, with
5 respect to when the dog engaged our dog, I can recall that. It
6 certainly all took place, you know, within the roadway on pavement.
7 I can remember being kind of in the middle of the road when this was
8 happening.
9 Q. So you remember you were in the middle of the road. Do
10 you remember where the dogs were?
11 A. Well, I was kicking ... when the dog engaged our dog, I
12 was forcibly trying to remove the Shepherd dog. We were ... I
13 wouldn't say we were very close to the middle of road at that point.
14 Q. Now could you see if there was any sort of device on this
15 other dog to control it?
16 A. No, there wasn't. There was, I couldn't see any kind of
17 muzzle or control device on the dog, no.

18 Q. And how clearly could you see the dog?
19 A. I mean, it was dark. But there was some lighting provided
20 by a streetlight, although it wasn't very much. But, I certainly
21 couldn't see any device on the dog's face or anything to that effect,
38
1 I mean, nothing.
2 Q. Okay. Had you ever previously had any involvement with
3 Ms. Rogier through your employment at HRM?
4 A. No, no. As I said, I work in the Sackville office, so,
5 and I work, you know, I work with Planning Services in the region.
6 The area of East Chezzetcook falls within the jurisdiction of the

7 eastern office, which is located at Alderney Gate. So we have three
8 offices: one in Sackville; one in Alderney Gate; and the western
9 region, which is in the Bayers Road location. So I have no cases
10 or dealings with much of the public in the eastern region, unless
11 there is a specific planning case assigned to me.
12 Q. How, if at all, were you controlling Lucy when you were
13 walking her that night?
14 A. We were walking Lucy on a leash and she was wearing a Halti.
15 Q. What's a Halti?
16 A. Yeah, I am not really sure what a Halti is. I guess it
17 kind of ... it doesn't cover Lucy's mouth, but what it does is, it
18 kind of runs up along her snout, I guess, her face, and what it does
19 is it essentially leads her, you know, from the front, I guess. So
20 it's a device to help your dog essentially walk. She walks very well
21 with it. Rather than, just on a leash.

39
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. She still has the ability or bark and to ... you know, she
3 can still, kind of bark and stuff. She just ... it just kind of leads
4 her, I think.
5 Q. So what did you after you were standing by the side of the
6 road?
7 A. So we had examined Lucy and at that point Ms. Rogier had
8 been asking us questions. So we proceeded to leave. I think I had
9 ... I can't recall if I encouraged my wife, you know, let's just,
10 let's go, let's get of here. And we started walking up the road and
11 as we were walking up the road Ms. Rogier was yelling, you know, like
12 she was still trying to engage the conversation. And my wife ...
13 they kind of exchanged for a bit as we were walking away. We walked
14 past ... So my in-laws' property is the property next to Ms. Rogier.
15 So we walked past that property and we went up the, not the next
16 driveway, but the following driveway, which is, you know, property
17 owned by someone that we know, as well. So we walked up the driveway

18 and then went to Katie's father's house, my in-laws' house, so that
19 we could take a look at Lucy and see if she was okay, yeah.
20 Q. And what happened once you were there?
21 A. Once we got there, Katie ... Katie phoned, she wanted to

40
1 report the incident, we both wanted to report the incident, we were
2 pretty upset. And Katie phoned, I think, not Animal Services at
3 first, but she ... she was using the phone book, and she called I
4 am not sure who she called, Wildlife Control or something to that
5 effect. And I think they had given her advice to call HRM Animal
6 Services but at that point they may be closed. They may not be able
7 to provide a statement at that point. So she proceed to call the
8 RCMP and they responded to the call, came to the residence and asked
9 us a few more questions.
10 A. Okay, and then what happened.
11 Q. And so it was Officer Mews came to the residence. We
12 reported the incident to her and explained to her essentially what
13 had happened. I do believe she encouraged us to follow up with Animal
14 Services through HRM, but at that point she asked us questions about
15 the incident. She kind of visually looked at our dog to make sure
16 it was okay. And during that point, that's when my father-in-law
17 was ... he was looking at Lucy up close and, you know, he had
18 identified a couple of wounds. One that looked like a puncture wound
19 and, that's the only wound he found at that point. It was a puncture
20 wound, he saw that and I remember that Officer Mews kind of said,
21 "Oh yeah, that looks like a bite, or that looks like something," you
41
1 know. So she advised us to photograph it, take a picture.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. So after that she left. She advised us that she was going
4 to visit or pay a visit, I guess, to Ms. Rogier to follow up with
5 her and that was the last we saw of her.
6 Q. And what happened after she left? What did you do after
7 that?
8 A. After she left, we stayed at Katie's father's house for
9 a little bit, I think her mom came home, you know, not long after
10 that. And I don't know, about an hour later, I guess, we ... Katie's
11 mother drove us back to our house. So we just piled in her car and
12 left. We didn't want to walk home.
13 Q. Okay. And what did you do once you were home?
14 A. Once we were home, we ... I remember we kind of looked Lucy
15 over again and at that point, I am pretty sure, I think it was Katie
16 that found the other, found another wound, sort of mark on Lucy. It
17 wasn't like a puncture wound, but it was another wound that was
18 bleeding. So we cleaned her, her wounds and we took photographs of
19 them again. So and then some of the photographs we have submitted
20 you'll see ... I think you will see my hands sort of showing the wound
21 and I think Katie took the picture. So I think it was just the two
42
1 of us and Lucy that evening. We were just looking further at her
2 wounds and at that time, you know, we were discussing taking her to
3 the vet the next morning.
4 Q. So all together, what kind of wounds did Lucy have?
5 A. She had ... on one side of her, I guess what we would
6 consider her shoulder and neck area, one side would, you know, like
7 a puncture wound, like a small circle, it looked like, you know, maybe
8 like a tooth, or something that had been sort of inserted into her
9 And then the other side was more of like a ... it looked kind of more
10 like a superficial wound, I guess it was kind of on the surface, like
11 a scratch. So a puncture would on one side, it seemed, and sort of
12 a scratch or marks on the other side.
13 Q. And is that all?
14 A. That's what I recall, yeah.
15 Q. And so what happened the next day?
16 A. The next day I went to work and Katie took Lucy to the vet.
17 So I wasn't part of that visit to the vet, but from my understanding

18 Katie took Lucy. They examined Lucy's wounds, they wrote up, you
19 know, their notes and so on, describing them and then, I believe they
20 took some pictures at the vet, as well of her wounds. My
21 understanding is ... I think Katie took those pictures and the vet
43
1 was there to sort of help hold Lucy and so on. I went to work and
2 I filed a complaint with HRM Animal Control. So I called the main
3 call centre and filed my complaint through them. That was around
4 9:00 the next morning.
5 Q. Okay, and did you get any follow up on the complaint that
6 you made?
7 A. Yes, so I placed a call in, left a message with somebody
8 at the call centre, and then I was contacted within the hour by Lori
9 Scolaro from Animal Services.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. She followed up in terms of, you know, the incident and
12 what had happened.
13 Q. Okay, and what did you do with her? Did you ever provide
14 any sort of statement?
15 A. Yeah, so at that point, after discussing some of the
16 details of what happened with her, I then provided a written statement
17 about the incident.

18 Q. So what kind of dog is Lucy?
19 A. Lucy is a ... she's a mixed breed dog. She's ... she's
20 a mixture between a beagle and a Labrador retriever.
21 Q. And how old was she on the date of the incident?

44
1 A. I forget. I don't know how old my dogs are. Probably like
2 a year, year and a half old. I mean she is going to be, she is about
3 a year old, she is essentially going to be two years old, and our
4 other dog will be ... no, she will be three years old coming this
5 year, and our other dog will be two, so she is probably around one
6 and half, two years old. So pretty young. She wasn't a puppy,
7 necessarily, but she is a young dog.
8 Q. Okay. And what was her personality like?
9 A. You mean, prior to the incident, or?
10 Q. Yeah, around ...
11 A. Yeah, she was really good. We liked in New Brunswick
12 before we moved to HRM in 2009, and we lived in Quispamsis and the
13 other resident where we lived had a Labrador retriever, you know,
14 nice dog, big dog. And Lucy, when she was a puppy was very well
15 socialized with other dogs, and had good mannerisms and wasn't ...
16 she was a great dog with other dogs. She wasn't temperamental. She
17 has never shown aggression to us or to any other dogs or anyone. She
18 is very submissive.
19 So you know she is a great dog. And, she still is, I guess,
20 but since the incident my wife and I have noticed that she is very
21 anxious. She is incredibly anxious and it's clearly evident that

45
1 she's ... she seems to be anxious, particularly around larger dogs.
2 My neighbours have dogs, at the beginning of our lane, and Lucy, when
3 we used to walk her and dogs would bark and stuff, you know, she would
4 ... when she was really young, she would kind of put her tail between
5 her legs, but she was very reserved. Now she kind of just ... she
6 freaks out. She'll bark and she gets all out of sort. So she's very
7 different since the incident and I believe so very much. It's, you
8 know, her ... she has high anxiety, I guess, if a dog can have that.
9 Q. So previous to the incident, had Lucy ever been involved
10 in any other fights or incidents with other dogs?
11 A. No, I mean I have never had any incidents with Lucy like
12 in terms of, you know, engaging other dogs, or attacking another dog,
13 or being attacked, nothing. She is, you know ...
14 Q. And how old was she when you got her?
15 A. We got her when she was a puppy, so she was, I'd say, maybe
16 12 weeks old or something. I don't ... she was ... She wasn't very
17 old, she had been with the owners, she was born, the people that we
18 got Lucy from, she was sort of born in that house and she was over
19 there for probably six to eight weeks, maybe. Not very old, say less
20 than 15 weeks old, I don't know, yeah, she was a puppy.
21 Q. All right. Now when the incident was going on, was anyone
46
1 else present, other than yourself and your wife and Ms. Rogier?
2 A. I wasn't aware of anybody else. Just, yeah, myself, my
3 wife, Lucy, the other dog and Ms. Rogier. That's all I have a record
4 of, yeah.
5 Q. So what sort of treatment did you do after Lucy's injuries?
6 A. I think we just essentially, we just cleaned around her
7 wounds. We just started to clean them up. I can't recall if we put
8 like Band-aids, or anything like that. We just kind of sort of
9 cleaned the areas and just took photographs of them and from there,
10 we just decided that we would let the vet look at them and decide
11 how to treat them, so.
12 Q. Okay, those are my questions, thank you.
13 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you very much, sir, you are
14 excused.
15 MR. SIMMS: Okay.
16
17 WITNESS WITHDREW: (Time: 11:58 hrs)
18
19 MS SALSMAN: Now, Your Honour, at this point it had been my
20 intention to call a witness who was going to be introducing a
21 statement made by Ms. Rogier, but that's going to involve ... probably
47
DISCUSSION
1 the voir dire will involve playing of a fairly long tape, so if we
2 are planning to break for lunch, that might not be ... I don't know
3 what time we're ...
4 THE COURT: All right, how are we doing? We can keep going,
5 it's up to you. It's ...
6 MS. SALSMAN: I am content to keep going.
7 THE COURT: Or the other witnesses. I don't know if you
8 need a lunch break or want a lunch break, and I would, myself, I am
9 not in the best of health, today, I have got a bit of a flu, so I
10 would just as soon keep going if it's possible, but I don't want to
11 put anyone out if they need a break ...
12 MS. SALSMAN: No absolutely, I am fine with that as, well.
13 Great. Okay, my next witness will be Michelle Steen.
14 THE COURT: Thank you.
15 MS. SALSMAN: Can I just put my computer somewhere to play
16 these tapes ... (inaudible)
17 THE COURT: I know it's usually either on that desk, there,
18 or that's ... I know that other counsel, set it up on that desktop,
19 on the table.
20 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, that's fine. I appreciate that.
21 THE COURT: Good morning.

48
DISCUSSION
1 MS. STEEN: Good morning.
2 THE COURT: Just ... please come forward and have a seat for
3 a moment. We will have you sworn in, thank you. Would you like a
4 glass of water?
5 MS. STEEN: Please.
6 THE COURT: Okay, we'll just get you one, just one second.
7 MS. SALSMAN: Oh, yes, sorry, we have to ... (inaudible)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
49
1 MICHELLE STEEN, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: Please state your name for the record, and spell
4 your last name.
5 A. My name is Michelle Steen. S-T-E-E-N.
8
9 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you Ms. Steen. What's your occupation?
10 A. I am a Commissionaire.
11 Q. And how long have you been so employed?
12 A. I have been with them about six years.
13 Q. And were you so employed and working on the night of
14 September 14, 2010?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And where were you working that night?
17 A. HRM Dispatch.
18 Q. And what's the nature of your duties when you work there?
19 A. We deal with all sorts of calls. A lot of them are animal
20 calls. If there is a motor vehicle accident, we deal with cleaning
21 them up, we call the service trucks to come and clean them up. A
50
MICHELLE STEEN, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 lot of our calls we do are Animal Services calls.
2 Q. Okay, and do you know a person by the name of Francesca
3 Rogier?
4 A. I have heard of her.
5 Q. You have heard of her. Have you ever had any contact with
6 her?
7 A. Through my job.
8 Q. Okay, and when did you first meet her.
9 A. Meet her?
10 Q. When did you first speak with her.
11 A. I think it was during the first time when her dog was
12 seized. I came into work and I happened to be ... no one in the call
13 centre wanted to take her call, and so they passed it on to me in
14 dispatch, and I guess she had a few questions about what was going
15 on, and (what was the?) case at that time.
16 Q. Okay. And the evening of September 14th, did you speak
17 with her that evening?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, Your Honour, we do have recordings of those calls that
20 we'd like to introduce. I assume we'll have to enter into the voir
21 dire now with those statements?

51
MICHELLE STEEN, Direct Exam. on Voir Dire by Ms. Salsman
1 THE COURT: All right, that would be fine. So we are
2 entering into a voir dire.
4 - VOIR DIRE COMMENCES -
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION ON VOIR DIRE
8 MS. SALSMAN: All right, so when you first met Ms. Rogier, how
9 many times had you spoken with her previously.
10 A. She would call the call centre, I would say, quite a few
11 times. A lot of people didn't really want to talk to her. She
12 happened ... we kept to the same schedule, so I don't know if she
13 knew my schedule or what, but she happened to call when I was there.
14 And, I guess I gave a sympathetic ear. So I listened to her, like
15 I would anybody else ...
16 Q. Okay, and for what purposes would she call?
17 A. I think she was calling because she was upset that she lost
18 her dog and she couldn't understand why.
19 Q. And what sort of things would you talk about?
20 A. She wanted to find out why she lost her dog, she is saying
21 her dog wasn't aggressive, that Brindi didn't bite anyone, any
52
MICHELLE STEEN, Direct Exam. on Voir Dire by Ms.Salsman
1 person. That she felt that there was a big conspiracy, and I can't
2 discuss stuff like that, so as best as I could I tried to help her
3 as my job would allow, but at the same time, you know, it is not my
4 job to know, I would have to refer her to Animal Services.
5 Q. Okay. And do you know if she spoke to other people at the
6 call centre like that?
7 A. A lot of people wouldn't take her calls. I think she tried
8 several times to talk to people in the call centre. I have heard a
9 couple of people that she has called the call centre been bugging
10 them asking them questions about the case and the dog, and ...
11 Q. Now the phone call that you received from Ms. Rogier that
12 night, was it recorded?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that the usual practice for the call centre?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is there anything that notifies you when you call the call
17 centre that it is going to be recorded?
18 A. I would, yes, I would say yes.
19 Q. Okay, now what time did she call?
20 A. I am not sure. Early evening I would say, maybe around
21 eight, nine, I am not quite sure of the time.

53
1 Q. I tender, as Exhibit 1, Your Honour, a recording of the
2 call that was made to the call centre.
3 THE CLERK: Exhibit 3. (sic)
4 MS. SALSMAN: I'm sorry, Exhibit 3.
5 THE COURT: Exhibit 3. Thank you. That's the CD of the
6 call centre.
8 EXHIBIT VD-1 - CD OF FIRST CALL TO HRM ANIMAL SERVICES CALL CENTRE,
9 MARKED AND ENTERED
10
11 MS. SALSMAN: Just before we get into the call, how many times
12 did she call that night.
13 A. That evening, as far as I can remember, she called once,
14 maybe twice, it is hard to remember. But I was the only one working
15 that night. We work alone.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 (CD PLAYED - 12:06 HRS)
18 MS. SALSMAN: It's not quite as loud as it sounded in my office
19 so maybe I'll move it over here so it's a little easier for Your Honour
20 to hear.
21 THE COURT: Okay, that's appreciated. Thank you very much.

54
1 I'll let you know.
3 THE COURT: I am having a hard time to hear it.
4 MS. SALSMAN: Okay. Maybe if we moved it up onto your desk.
5 THE COURT: I don't mind that at all. As long as the
6 witness, I can step down as well. How long is this?
7 MS. SALSMAN: About half an hour.
8 THE COURT: Half an hour, okay. Can we set it up there, I
9 don't know if that would let you hear it as well.
10 MS. SALSMAN: Can you hear that?
11 MS. STEEN: Uh-huh.
13 (CD CONCLUDES - 12:40 HRS)
14 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I tender as Exhibit 4 (sic) a
15 transcript of that tape.
16 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
17 THE (CLERK?): Should be exhibit on voir dire.
18 THE COURT: That's true, yeah, thank you. So voir dire.
19 MS. SALSMAN: This will be Exhibit 2 for the voir dire.
20 THE COURT: For the voir dire.
21
55
1 EXHIBIT VD-2 - TRANSCRIPT OF FIRST CALL CENTRE RECORDING, MARKED AND
2 ENTERED
4 MS. SALSMAN: And did Ms. Rogier call back that night?
5 A. I can't remember, I think she did...
6 THE COURT: Wendy...
7 A. ... but I can't remember.
8 MS. SALSMAN: Did she ever file a report with HRM?
9 A. I can't remember. I think so, but I can't remember. It's
10 been two years. The report ... the report will be in the system if
11 she filed it. I am trying to think if she did or not.
12 MS. SALSMAN: Okay. Your Honour, I do have another tape to
13 play. Maybe I can play it ... (inaudible) minute of the second
14 phone call.
15 THE COURT: Okay, thank you. So I put it down there. Just
16 a second. Is this just a few minutes?
17 MS. SALSMAN: Ah, pardon?
18 THE COURT: How long is this? Is this ...
19 MS. SALSMAN: Let me check ... This one is actually about half
20 an hour. Would you like me to start it now ...
21 THE COURT: Sure, yeah, let's just keep moving, as long as

56
1 that's okay. Nobody needs a break yet?
3 (CD CONCLUDES - 13:11 HRS)
4 MS. SALSMAN: So, Ms. Steen, do you recognize the voices in
5 that phone call?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay, and who was that phone call between?
8 A. Me and Francesca.
9 Q. I tender Exhibit 3 for the purposes of the voir dire, a
10 transcript.
11 THE COURT: Thank you. So that would be for the voir dire.
12 EXHIBIT VD-3 - TRANSCRIPT OF SECOND CALL TO THE HRM ANIMAL SERVICES
13 CALL CENTRE, MARKED AND ENTERED
14 MS. SALSMAN: And, for the record, Your Honour, that file that
15 we played on the CD is titled AMichelle Fran 2@ and the previous
16 recording was AMichelle Fran 1.@
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MS. SALSMAN: And, the first recording, we had played, Ms.
19 Steen, who was that phone call between?
20 A. Me. And Francesca.
21 Q. And what was her full name?

57
1 A. Francesca Rogier.
2 Q. And do those recordings represent the extent to your
3 conversations that evening?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay, so there is nothing else that wasn't caught on those?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And, prior to that date, when was the last time you had
8 spoken to her?
9 A. That, I am not sure, because, like I said she used to call
10 the call centre quite a bit. If she didn't get someone in the call
11 centre to listen to her ...
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. She ... I have a sympathetic ear, I mean.
14 Q. So could you estimate how long it would have been?
15 A. It might ... if there was no incident, it might have been
16 a couple of weeks, sometimes, some weeks would go by or a month.
17 Q. Okay. Those are my questions.
18 THE COURT: Thank you very much, you are excused.
19
20 WITNESS WITHDREW (TIME: 13:13 HRS)
21
58
SUBMISSION ON THE VOIR DIRE BY MS. SALSMAN
1 THE COURT: Do you wish to make submissions on the voir dire,
2 is that the completion of the voir dire?
3 SUBMISSION ON THE VOIR DIRE BY MS. SALSMAN
5 MS. SALSMAN: That is the completion of the voir dire, Your
6 Honour.
7 Well, with regards to the statement, Your Honour, the first step
8 is determining whether or not it was actually a statement that was
9 made to authority in determining whether the statement is admissible.
10 And the Crown's position in this case is that it was not a statement
11 made to authority.
12 Ms. Rogier was not calling Ms. Steen to speak to her as a
13 representative of HRM, she was really calling her as a friend that
14 she knew was on the inside of HRM that she felt could give her some
15 advice on the situation at hand.
16 And, that phone call, because it was made to the HRM Call Centre
17 was a recorded phone call and Ms. Steen has testified to the fact
18 that that is the extent of their conversation on that evening, and
19 I think that given the way they were conversing that evening, it's
20 very clear that they really were speaking as friends. There was a
21 report taken, but outside of that there were conversations about

59
1 other subjects. Ms. Steen was really serving, as she says herself,
2 as a sympathetic ear on that evening, as well as providing her what
3 she thought was some advice on how she should handle the situation
4 so that she could try and keep Brindi.
5 So, on that basis, Your Honour, we would suggest that the
6 statement be introduced. But in the event that Your Honour does find
7 that because of her position as a member of the HRM dispatch, that
8 she was a person in authority, the Crown would nevertheless submit
9 that this was a voluntary statement.
10 Ms. Rogier made the choice to call the call centre that night.
11 At no point was Ms. Steen questioning her or trying to seek further
12 information. It was really just a normal conversation between them,
13 and most of the information that came out that evening was volunteered
14 by Ms. Rogier without any questions on the part of Ms. Steen
15 whatsoever.
16 Ms. Rogier was, in fact, making the call for her own purposes.
17 It was a self-serving phone call. She was doing that, first of all,
18 to find out if there had been any other phone calls made, and also
19 to make her own report in what she thought would cut off the Simms
20 from having their report investigated first.
21 So this was a phone call that Ms. Rogier made for her own
60
1 purposes. It was voluntarily made, and there was nothing in Ms.
2 Steen's conversation, I think that could be even remotely interpreted
3 as any sort of a threat or a promise if that ... that would induce
4 Ms. Rogier to make those statements.
5 So on that basis, Your Honour, the Crown would respectfully
6 submit that the statements should be introduced.
7 THE COURT: All right. I would agree on submissions of
8 counsel that those statements can be introduced. What I will do is,
9 I will, at the end of the day I am going to reserve decision because
10 of the Charter, not on the voir dire. But I would give my explanation
11 and reasoning behind the voir dire decision at the time when I write
12 my decision.
13 MS. SALSMAN: Okay.
14 THE COURT: Does that seem reasonable enough? And as well,
15 I was going to respond to the Charter motions that have been raised
16 as well, at the time of writing my decision.
17
18 - TRIAL-IN-CHIEF -
19
20 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. So I would ask that the
21 statements that have been played in for the purposes of the voir dire
61
DISCUSSION
1 be introduced as evidence for the purpose of the trial as a whole?
2 THE COURT: Yes, and I would agree.
3 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 THE COURT: Now did you want to, perhaps, take a break now.
5 I don't know ...
6 MS. SALSMAN: This would probably be a good time, yes.
7 THE COURT: How many more witnesses do you have?
8 MS. SALSMAN: We have two more witnesses.
9 THE COURT: Two.
10 MS. SALSMAN: Neither of them should be particularly long.
11 THE COURT: Two. I mean we can keep plunging through if you
12 like, I am ready to do so. I just don't know how you feel
13 or ...
14 MS. SALSMAN: I wouldn't mind just even a five minute ...
15 THE COURT: Okay, I appreciate that.
16 MS. SALSMAN: ... break and then ...
17 THE COURT: Why don't we do that and give you ... is that
18 enough time?
19 MS. SALSMAN: Five minutes is just fine.
20 THE COURT: Let's say we go to 1:30.
21 MS. SALSMAN: That's fine.

62
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: Then we can just keep going, okay. Thanks so
2 much.
4 COURT RECESSED (TIME: 13:17 HRS)
5 COURT RECONVENED (TIME: 13:42 HRS)
7 THE CLERK: Court is reconvened.
8 THE COURT: Thank you. So, Ms. Rogier, you understand that
9 you were not here this morning. We waited until ... you said you
10 were going to be here by a quarter to eleven. You were not. We
11 waited until 11:00, you were not. There had been no further calls
12 so we have proceeded on an ex-parte basis with respect to your trial.
13 The trial will continue on that basis although you are here now, so
14 with ... unless I will hear from Ms. Salsman.
15 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, Your Honour, we are prepared to proceed.
16 The only thing that I would comment on is that the Simms were just
17 about to leave when Ms. Rogier appeared. They are wondering if Your
18 Honour would like them to be available now, or if they may go?
19 THE COURT: For cross-examination?
20 MS. SALSMAN: Yes.
21 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour ...

63
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: If there's ... Just a minute. If they are still
2 here and they are willing, I know that they were concerned about the
3 wait that they had this morning, but if ... They made statements,
4 right, Ms. Rogier has read those statements.
5 MS. SALSMAN: Yes. They have.
6 THE COURT: So that would be if they are willing to do that
7 then I would agree then we should allow that to happen. All right.
8 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, if I may. Could I please clarify
9 the conditions this morning so that you understand that I was in a
10 car accident and my car was halfway up in the air and it took two
11 hours for the tow truck to get there and my cell phone ended up losing
12 the charge. So there was no way for me to connect with anybody. Then
13 there was some time before he got out. I don't recall ever saying
14 to anyone I was going to be here at any given time. The only things
15 I said were, I will update you. I am hoping it is going to be an
16 hour or so.
17 THE COURT: No, that is not the information ...
18 MS. ROGIER: There were two calls to the ...
19 THE COURT: That is not the information that I had before
20 me, madam. The information was that you were going to be an hour.
21 A neighbour had called on your behalf, that you were going to be an

64
DISCUSSION
1 hour...
2 MS. ROGIER: No.
3 THE COURT: There was no further information. We waited,
4 we waited another 15 minutes. There were people, witnesses, present
5 and ...
6 MS. ROGIER: I understand, Your Honour.
7 THE COURT: ... anxious to get going. As I understand they
8 had been on the last occasion in November.
9 MS. ROGIER: Yes, which I meant to thank you for.
10 THE COURT: So the matter proceeded on an ex-parte basis.
12 THE COURT: However, just a minute. The Simms are, Mr. and
13 Mrs. Simms are here, have remained and you are certainly entitled
14 ... you can call them back individually and you're entitled to
15 cross-examine them as witnesses. So we will proceed on that basis.
16 MS. ROGIER: It's just that, Your Honour, I spent a lot of
17 time and today was my understanding that it was going to be about
18 the Charter claim, so that I exclusively prepared for that. I am
19 not prepared for the trial. I have an argument, a series of
20 arguments, and there are serious breaches of the Charter at stake
21 here, that would be at stake to bring the administration of justice

65
DISCUSSION
1 into disrepute should the trial go ahead. And I think that they're,
2 well, it would put me at a great disadvantage, first of all, to go
3 through the trial at this stage when I have, you know, had the
4 understanding that today was set aside for this claim, and that the
5 next day was for the trial.
6 THE COURT: Well, I don't know where you got that
7 understanding, because it's clear that the matter was scheduled for
8 trial two days. Today and March 16th.
9 MS. ROGIER: And the March 16th. Yes, I understood that.
10 THE COURT: And two days for trial in November, that was
11 clear as well.
12 MS. ROGIER: Yes.
13 THE COURT: The schedule was for trial. And I have received
14 your written, you refer to it is a brief, but I accept that it was
15 a brief. A brief was filed in return in response by the Crown. You
16 withdrew one motion with respect to the Charter, I will certainly
17 at the end of the evidence here this afternoon, I can certainly hear
18 if you wish to respond to the Charter brief filed by the Crown, and
19 or you may wish to respond in writing if that is easier to do. That's
20 up to you. We'll let you have that opportunity.
21 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me, I have difficulty hearing you.

66
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: All right.
2 MS. ROGIER: Could you repeat that?
3 THE COURT: All right. I am saying that what we are going
4 to do this afternoon is continue with Mr. and Mrs. Simms have ...
5 kindly they are still here. They are prepared to return and be
6 cross-examined by you. You have, I understand, statements that they
7 had given, so you are not at a great loss. You have had many, many
8 months to prepare for trial, madam, and we are going to keep
9 proceeding as we have been doing today. And as I said, at the end
10 of the evidence being taken, I will hear you with respect to the
11 Charter issues if you wish or you may respond in writing to the Charter
12 issues, if you wish, that your Charter issues ... the response which
13 the Crown gave to the Court with respect to ... you're calling it
14 a brief, that you filed with respect to the raising of Charter issues.
15 We can ... that's fine. But at this point in time we are going to
16 continue with the trial proper. So, if you would like to call Mr.
17 and/or Mrs. Simms, whichever you would be prepared ...
18 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, actually I may just call Cst. Mews.
19 Her evidence is going to be about five minutes.
20 THE COURT: Oh, that would be find, then certainly. Oh,
21 Cst. Mews is here, all right. All right come forward, please.
67
1 CST. SHELLEY MEWS, sworn, testified:
3 THE COURT: Please be seated for a moment. I just want to
4 ensure that although we are halfway through the process here that
5 Ms. Rogier you understand, of course, that the Crown has been
6 presenting its case. It's going to continue to do so now, and the
7 Crown will put questions to the witnesses and you, of course, have
8 the right to cross-examine those witnesses. All right, you have got
9 paper and pen there, all right, that's fine, all right.
10
12
13 MS. SALSMAN: Now, what's your occupation?
14 A. I am a police officer at the rank of constable with the
15 Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
17 A. It's been five year since February of 2007.
18 Q. And were you so employed and on duty on the evening of
19 September 14, 2010?
20 A. Yes, I was.
21 Q. Did you respond to a call that night, that's relevant to

68
CST. SHELLEY MEWS, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 the proceedings here today?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Could you tell the Court what happened when you responded
4 to that call?
5 A. I believe it was near 8:54 or 8:56 p.m. that evening.
6 Katie or Catherine Simms had called the RCMP in relation to a
7 complaint where she stated that her dog had been attacked by another
8 dog when they were out for a walk on East Chezzetcook Road.
9 Q. Okay, and what did you do to respond to that complaint?
10 A. I attended 772 East Chezzetcook Road, which is the
11 residence of Katie Simms' parents. At that time, I met with her and
12 her husband was there as well, Tyson Simms, and her parents and they
13 informed me of the incident that happened. So they provided a verbal
14 statement to me. And then the matter went on to Animal Services for
15 further investigation.
16 Q. Okay, and did you have an opportunity to meet the dog that
17 belonged to the Simms?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 THE COURT: Excuse me...
20 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me, Your Honour, I am just looking for
21 something that...
69
CST. SHELLEY MEWS, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 THE COURT: Just sit down, please, Ms. Rogier.
2 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry.
3 THE COURT: All right, please continue.
4 MS. SALSMAN: Did you have an opportunity to meet their dog?
5 A. Yes, I did. The dog was at the residence of her parents
6 when I was there.
7 Q. And, did you have a chance to examine that dog?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. What, if anything, did you observe when you examined it?
10 A. I did observe one lesion on the dog's back, almost like
11 that of a tooth mark or bite.
12 Q. And what did you do after that?
13 A. After taking information from Katie and her husband, I then
14 proceeded to go next door to 782 East Chezzetcook Road to speak with
15 Ms. Rogier.
16 Q. And did you have the opportunity to do that?
17 A. First, when I went outside, to park my police car on the
18 side of the road, I had gotten flagged down by a gentleman, indicated
19 that he was involved in a collision where a rock had hit his windshield
20 and it cracked. So that took a few moments of time, after which I
21 proceeded to go to Ms. Rogier's residence, but there was no one home

70
CST. SHELLEY MEWS, Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 and I didn't observe any vehicles or of a Subaru nature in the driveway
2 at that time. So I didn't get the opportunity to speak with her that
3 night.
5 THE COURT: Thank you, all right
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 MS. ROGIER: Hello, Cst. Mews. The last time we met you were
10 in my home taking my dog, so it's been quite a long time. I would
11 like to ask you a few questions about the warrant information that
12 you wrote out. I don't know if that's been entered as evidence.
13 A. Which warrant information?
14 Q. The Information to Obtain a Warrant.
15 A. That has no relevance as to why I am here today.
16 Q. I'm sorry, you didn't, I am sorry that's not you.
17 A. I am just relating to the information...
18 Q. I understand. When you examined the dog, you said that
19 you saw a spot, a mark?
20 A. A lesion, yeah.
21 Q. A lesion. And how large would you say the lesion was?
71
1 A. Possibly maybe a quarter of an inch to a fifth of an inch
2 is what I am estimating.
3 Q. And did it look like the dog was in any kind of pain?
4 A. The dog, at the time, appeared like it may have been in
5 pain, yes.
6 Q. And how do you read it, like what kind of indication was
7 there?
8 A. Just by his mannerism. The dog wasn't excited or jumping
9 on me or anything. Normally, from past experience, if I deal with
10 animals, if they are in a good mood, all those things, they will jump
11 on me. They are friendly.
12 Q. Really, I...
13 A. The dog wasn't of that frame of nature or mind that evening.
14 Q. That's an interesting indication, because actually it's
15 a very ... well, some people might feel it's a undesirable
16 characteristic to have a dog jump on you, so, that's ... and one thing
17 that I ...
18 A. Okay, I am not a dog owner myself, so...
19 Q. Sure. But that's ... yeah. Did it wince, was it crying
20 or anything like that?
21 A. I don't not recall.

72
1 Q. Did the owners ... well, we'll find out, we'll hear from
2 the Simms.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have you seen other injuries on dogs before? Have you seen
5 a dog with a serious injury?
6 A. Yeah, yeah. In a past relationship, a friend of mine there
7 had a dog and I did see a lesion on the paw as a result of being in
8 the water.
9 Q. Excuse me, as a result of ...
10 A. The dog's paw had a lesion.
11 Q. As a result of being?
12 A. It had gotten cut by a rock.
13 Q. A rock, okay.
14 A. So, yes, I have seen an injury on a dog before.
15 Q. And did the dog have any trouble recovering from that?
16 A. It did take some time, yes.
17 Q. Would you say that that was a more serious injury than the
18 one that you saw on Lucy?
19 A. I am not a dog expert, so I can't really compare...
20 Q. Yeah...
21 A. ... the two.

73
1 Q. Let me just ...
2 A. And I don't know how long it took for the other dog to heal,
3 so it's not really my position to state that ...
4 Q. Could you ... would you be able to say how ... about
5 approximately how ... or do you have some sort of idea approximately
6 of how much time had passed between the time that you saw the dog
7 and the time that the incident occurred?
8 A. Yeah, I arrived on scene, I believe it was at 9:16 p.m.
9 and it was shortly thereafter that I viewed the dog and from what
10 Katie had told me she had called the police at 8:54 or 8:56 and she
11 said the incident happened ten minutes prior. So it would have been
12 a 45-minute time frame?
13 Q. Do you customarily answer calls about dog fights or
14 anything?
15 A. Yes, it is quite common that we do respond to animal
16 complaints.
17 Q. And, are they usually in progress or are they reports that
18 people are making afterwards?
19 A. Both.
20 Q. Okay. Is there a specification in Bylaw A-300 that calls
21 for RCMP to be involved in law enforcement or that you know of?

74
1 A. It's quite common here in HRM that police typically do get
2 called to these. If it warrants an investigation by Animal Control,
3 it goes by that means. If there is an incident where maybe a person
4 may have got harmed, because this incident did happen in the road,
5 and there was an issue of public safety if vehicles had been driving
6 by, so yes, it would be a police matter, as well.
7 Q. I would say allegedly it happened in the road. I think
8 that you've heard from one witness.
9 A. Based on the information I gathered, I wasn't there.
10 Q. Yeah, I just want to correct, yeah, I just want to put that
11 out there, because I have different account of that, but okay. So
12 your goal was basically to come and examine the dog, or what? What
13 exactly ...
14 A. Well, we take ... we do the initial information, gather
15 the initial information.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. And then deem, you know, if it's a police matter, or if
18 it's something that's going to be pursued by Animal Services.
19 Q. Did the dog, did Lucy require immediate medical attention?
20 A. At that time? You would have to ask the Simms about that.
21 Q. Okay, but as you were there, were they ...

75
1 A. They ... I believe they did have to treat the dog with some
2 form of ointment or something that night, and it was to be brought
3 to the vet, I believe in the morning.
4 Q. Okay, so but that they waited to the morning to go to the
5 vet?
6 A. I am not sure.
7 Q. Okay, well, we will find that out, I guess. All right
8 Officer, thank you very much, I don't believe I have any more
9 questions that I can remember.
10 THE COURT: Thank you, anything on re-direct?
11 MS. SALSMAN: No, thank you, Your Honour.
12 THE COURT: Thank you so much, officer, for your testimony.
13 CST. MEWS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 THE COURT: You are excused.
15
17
18 MS. SALSMAN: Maybe I'll just step out and let the Simms know
19 that they are going to be needed.
20 THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind that would be
21 appreciated, thank you very much.

76
DISCUSSION
2 THE COURT: Just please wait until Ms. Salsman returns.
3 MS. ROGIER: I have a question, Your Honour.
5 MR. TYSON SIMMS, sworn, testified:
7 THE COURT: Just before, I just didn't notice the witness
8 coming in, just before we start, Ms. Rogier had a question to the
9 Court and I asked her to wait until Crown counsel was in attendance.
10 MS. ROGIER: I just briefly, I don't ... I would like to know
11 who testified, or what kind of testimony was already heard before
12 I could come here.
13 THE COURT: Well, I am not going over it all now.
14 MS. ROGIER: Can I have a list ...
15 THE COURT: Unfortunately, madam, you weren't here, we
16 proceeded on an ex-parte basis, because we had not heard any further
17 from you. And the witnesses were all waiting, on a second occasion,
18 and ... but I do understand that you have received disclosure, that
19 any statements that were taken, I don't know if they're ... I'm
20 looking at Ms.... I don't know what's in the disclosure package, Ms.
21 Salsman, what information Ms. Rogier may have had...

77
TYSON SIMMS, Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, Ms. Rogier does have statements, as well
2 as there were interviews with police and she has been provided those,
3 as well.
4 THE COURT:: All right. So that's a good basis then.
5 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, will I have an opportunity to
6 cross-examine Shelly Rodger?

7 MS. SALSMAN: Shelly ... Valerie Rodger?
8 MS. ROGIER: I'm sorry, Valerie Rodger.
9 MS. SALSMAN: Valerie Rodger hasn't testified yet.
10 MS. ROGIER: Thank you.
11 THE COURT: So you may start, then, with your questioning
12 of Mr. Simms.
13 MS. ROGIER: Uh-huh.
14 THE COURT: Thank you for waiting, Mr. Simms.
15
16 CROSS-EXAMINATION
17
18 MS. ROGIER: Sorry, I am very sorry. I do apologize, and I
19 certainly didn't mean any disrespect to the Court this morning. My
20 car was halfway up in the air, and it was very shaky, and I am just
21 very glad that I wasn't injured today. So, I am still jittery, it

78
1 is a little tricky to drive.
2 Q. So, you are Tyson Simms?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And you work for HRM?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And what department do you work in?

7 A. Planning Services.
8 Q. And what do you do there?
9 A. I am a planner.
10 Q. You're a planner. Do you have anything to do with
11 permitting?
12 A. Um, well I guess my role as a planner is to provide advice
13 on land-use matters to members of council. And particularly, I will
14 interpret the various municipal planning strategies, but that's
15 about it. I have no role in issuing, or administering permits.
16 Q. So, in your reports, who did you first contact when this
17 incident ... after this incident happened?

18 A. Ah, the following day.
19 THE COURT: You just have to stand, if you don't mind, behind
20 the microphone.
21 MS. ROGIER: I'm sorry. I am having trouble in this

79
1 courtroom hearing, Your Honour, I'm not really usually ....
2 THE COURT: Okay, if you can just keep your voice elevated, to
3 ensure that you can hear.
5 A. The following morning I made a call to the HRM call centre
6 and provided a statement to the person who was responding at the call
7 centre. I was then contacted by Ms., I believe it was Ms. Lori
8 Scolaro within about an hour of reporting the incident the previous
9 evening.
10 Q. And how were you feeling at the time that she called you?
11 Were you upset or distressed or was it ... were you just concerned
12 about making a report or...
13 A. Well, I probably a little bit upset, yeah. But, I don't
14 really recall how I felt, I guess. I anticipated receiving,
15 perhaps, a response from someone. And, I guess I was most concerned
16 with how I could make a complaint, one, and how, if I was to submit
17 anything in writing, how I would go about doing that. That seemed

18 to be ...
19 Q. I noticed that in your report you described your wife's
20 conduct and behaviour and reaction during the incident and afterwards
21 a little bit. And you talk about her sort of you know, becoming very
80
1 vocal and sort of acting up and so on. It seemed that maybe, you
2 had a, you know, a sense that that was just her being her, kind of
3 thing. Like that's her (mode of?) ... kind of way of being
4 expressive. Would that be a false characterization?
5 A. So what's the question, I guess?
6 Q. The question is, would that be a false charac ... would

7 you agree to that description, or....
8 A. I don't think I would characterize my wife, based on
9 perhaps her reaction to the incident that I reported. I think we were
10 both quite upset. I tend to be reserved in terms, you know, I guess,
11 my reaction is ... I would characterize myself as being fairly
12 reserved. I would say for the most part, she is also very reserved.
13 But in the circumstances I think she was quite upset and, yes, I did
14 note that there was a verbal exchange between my wife and yourself.
15 Q. You did note that?
16 A. I believe so, in my statement, or she engaged in more
17 conversation than I did.

18 Q. If I could ...
19 A. But that's about it.
20 Q. Thank you. If I could just ask you. Do you ... It has
21 been a long time, right. It's been a really hard thing to probably
81
1 go back and do that, but do you recall what I said to you at any point?
2 A. I recall certain ... a few statements, I believe, but...
3 Q. Do you recall me asking if your dog was okay?
4 A. Yes. I think the first thing that you had asked was, you
5 know, "Is your dog okay?" You seemed to show some concern for my
6 dog, yeah. I acknowledge that, certainly.

7 Q. Yeah, and did you reply?
8 A. Um, I don't think I replied at all.
9 Q. Do you ...
10 A. I think Katie ... I think my wife carried most of the ...
11 responded for the most part.
12 Q. If I said that my recollection is that actually you
13 responded to me that you thought so, you know you said she was okay.
14 Would that be possible that that happened?
15 A. Yeah, that's ... perhaps. I think, I think, you know I
16 am trying to recall the incident here, I guess ...
17 Q. Yeah.
18 A. ... and the initial, I guess, the initial conversation got
19 started, I guess, would be, I do recall you asking if our dog was
20 fine or okay. And you showed some sort of sincere ... sincerity there
21 for sure.
82
1 Q. But ...
2 A. I think what I recall saying is, I am not, you know, I may
3 have said, She seemed fine, I don't know, but I certainly recall
4 saying, "I am not sure." I mean I want to get her in the light and
5 sort of take a look at her and see if she is okay.
6 Q. Yeah. So do you remember kneeling at the side of the road

7 there, and you know, in front of my house, and holding your dog and
8 checking her out there, when I was speaking to you that night?
9 A. I recall that, yeah.
10 Q. That's what I recall as well.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So at that time you really didn't know whether or not your
13 dog had been injured.
14 A. Yeah, I guess basic ... well, I know my dog once it was
15 sort of free from this incident, this confrontation, it ran up the
16 road.
17 Q. Right.
18 A. It was yelping, crying, you know, it was obviously
19 distressed.
20 Q. Right.
21 A. Even when I held my dog it was ... visibly my dog was very
83
1 shaken up, but I will also note that it was close to 9:00 at night.
2 It was dark. And I think that what little light that was provided
3 was by a streetlight that was there and it wasn't very ... I didn't
4 have a very visible picture in terms of what her, maybe her close
5 injuries may have been at that time, or....
6 Q. So since it was kind of dark, and the streetlight is at

7 least, I would say, I don't know, maybe 60-70 feet away from the front
8 of my house, or, then it's probably true also that during that
9 incident it was difficult to see what was happening, would you say
10 that is correct?
11 A. Well, I ...
12 Q. ...(inaudible due to low audio) shadows ...(inaudible)
13 dog.
14 A. Well, I think visibility to some respect may be a concern,
15 but I can certainly ... I certainly had enough visibility to see,
16 you know, where I was, where my dog was, you know, with respect to
17 that.
18 Q. Really? Without having...
19 A. Yeah, I mean it wasn't pitch dark.
20 Q. Yeah, but it was very dark from my recollection, but I ...
21 which is why I am interested in your perception (of things?)

84
1 Sometimes when things happen we have an extended sense of time, that
2 you know, with any sort of accident or something, time really slows
3 down, and we think it's really longer than it really is. For
4 instance, you know, I can tell you that, on an earlier occasion I
5 timed that (length?) because I ran ...
6 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, this line of questioning...

7 MS. ROGIER: No, it goes to the report that was filed, and
8 I believe that you and your wife had said that you believe it lasted
9 for a minute and a half. Would you say that now, thinking back?
10 A. No, I guess, it's very ... I guess what I can say is it's
11 challenging to decipher how long these sort of incidents last, right.
12 Q. Right.
13 A. I will certainly say that it was frightening, it was
14 terrifying to see my dog...
15 Q. But you can't say exactly how long...
16 THE COURT: Just a minute now, just let the witness answer,
17 please.
18 MS. ROGIER: Sorry.
19 A. Um, I don't know, I mean it felt a lot longer than perhaps
20 what it lasted, but I would still say that the actual confrontation
21 in trying to separate the dogs lasted probably anywhere from 10-15

85
1 seconds at least. I would like. The entire incident from beginning
2 to end would be several minutes, there is no question.
3 Q. And are you absolutely sure that there was a need to
4 dislodge a dog from another dog?
5 A. Yes, well...
6 Q. Can you say with 100 percent certainty?

7 A. Well, I guess, I saw a dog run towards my dog. Engage it,
8 it was barking, both dogs were then locked together. There was my
9 dog, I am almost certain I could hear my dog yelping or, you know,
10 in sort of a defensive position, and the other dog growling. So I
11 take that as being that, one, my dog is being attacked, two, I feel
12 very helpless, there is not much I can do in that scenario. So I
13 naturally instinctively try to separate the dogs. Um, and by doing
14 that, you know, I>ll admit this, and I said this in my statement, I
15 kicked the dog that was attacking my dog in an attempt to remove it.
16 Q. Both dogs are brownish, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. They were both brown. And we were in kind of a dark, you
19 know, it's not completely pitch black, but it was relatively dark,
20 and when it's dark, it's hard to tell colours (precisely?) is that
21 true? So could you say with, you know, certainty that every second
86
1 that that lasted that you could tell which dog was which that you
2 were seeing.
3 A. One thing ... Yeah, I think you have some points there
4 perhaps, but one thing that I'll maintain is that my perception is
5 that my dog seemed smaller. And when the dog attacked it, when your
6 dog came towards it, my dog is submissive. It is submissive by

7 nature, and I think it was submissive this evening, as well. It sort
8 of crouched down. And your dog sort of, on top of it, got on top
9 of it, in this sort of position.
10 Q. ...(inaudible)
11 A. So whether or not I could decipher the colouring of each
12 dog, my dog is a lighter colour than the dark, what I could tell is
13 that your dog is a darker colour. Now, I am not going to sit here
14 and try and decipher whether or not I could tell each dog apart in
15 a fight, I don't know if you could do that in daylight.
16 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I'd just like to say it's difficult
17 for me to follow a line of questioning, because my perception of these

18 events was very different.
19 THE COURT: Of course, but you will have your opportunity
20 to, if you wish to do so, to take the stand.
21 MS. ROGIER: I do have a few more questions, though.

87
1 THE COURT: Oh, no, that's fine.
2 MS. ROGIER: Thank you. Now you said that you kicked Brindi.
3 And, I have to say that that surprised me, because at the time, for
4 instance, I didn't know that you and your wife had both kicked Brindi
5 and it's in your statement. And, I wondered if you could tell me
6 how many times. It sounded like that was a lot of kicking going on,
7 and that's why for me, it was so short lived that I didn't even notice
8 that, so.
9 A. I couldn't tell you the number of times I kicked the dog.
10 As I said, I was acting instinctively on the fact that I thought my
11 dog was in great harm, possibly going to be killed. So I ... I did
12 everything in my physical power to remove the dog. I wasn't going
13 to stick my hand down there and try and remove the dog forcibly by
14 hand. I tried to kick that dog and physically remove it from mine.
15 Q. Thank you. So, Tyson, did you ever take obedience class
16 with the dog that you have?
17 A. I have taken classes with both of my dogs. Yeah, I've

18 taken classes with I believe it is Lietash ...
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. ... Obedience.
21 Q. Did you complete the Lietash?

88
1 A. We did not complete the class, but we never took the
2 obedience class until, I think, after this incident?
3 Q. Afterwards. Okay. So up until that point you really
4 didn't have ... well, you're not ...
5 A. I guess I never had any sort of formal dog obedience
6 training, but I will also add that my dog, one, is not

7 confrontational, and never has shown aggression to a person and/or
8 another animal. He is very submissive.
9 Q. Would you say ... okay, thank you. Would you say that
10 Brindi was aggressive to you when you kicked her? Did she turn around
11 and try to defend herself or snarl...
12 A. No, as I was kicking Brindi, or kicking the dog, that dog
13 maintained its position on my dog. It was not letting go.
14 Q. Were you afraid to kick Brindi?
15 A. I was terrified by the whole incident, yeah.
16 Q. But, so you didn't really have the thought...
17 A. Well I don't enjoy kicking dogs, that's for sure.

18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I didn't ... you know, it's not a pleasant experience here.
20 I am not ... I am not sort of inferring any satisfaction in kicking
21 a dog. I was terrified that my dog was, one, in danger and could
89
1 possibly die.
2 Q. Okay, so you ...
3 A. It was frightening.
4 Q. Okay, so you say possibly dying several times. And I am
5 wondering about that too, but have you ever studied dog behaviour
6 and communications?
7 A. No. I can just simply say that I own a dog.
8 Q. So you would ... are you aware that dogs sometimes may
9 appear to a human that they may be fighting or they may be injured,
10 but they are actually communicating in a different way than humans
11 do? Would that be a likelihood?
12 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, he has already said that he is not
13 an expert in this area.
14 MS. ROGIER: Well, I think it's important because he is an
15 eyewitness, Your Honour.
16 THE COURT: But you are asking for this person, this
17 witness ...
18 MS. ROGIER: I am just trying to get an idea of ...
19 THE COURT: Just a second please. You are asking for this
20 witness to give basically an opinion on dog behaviour and he is not
21 a dog behaviour expert.

90
1 MS. ROGIER: That's true. But his ... the extent to which
2 he understands or knows anything about dog behaviour would colour
3 his description of the events, because a lot of it might be an
4 emotional reaction. And it might end up distorting his perception
5 of what actually happened.
6 THE COURT: I think what your question is is perhaps could

7 be isn't it possible that the dogs were doing something other than
8 what he perceived?
9 MS. ROGIER: Exactly. Because when you say, possibly kill,
10 is what I am responding to that I am wondering that could you imagine
11 that maybe there is, this could be your perception by virtue that
12 this is the, you know, up until now you didn't have really a lot of
13 experience or knowledge about dogs and in the way they interact and
14 the different ways, and so on. So you don't really need to...
15 THE COURT: Okay, you can respond. I think you are ready
16 to respond.
17 A. Yeah, I am not sure how to respond to the question, I guess.

18 So what I will say is that I am the owner of two dogs. They are not
19 aggressive dogs or confrontational by any means with both humans or
20 other dogs. And, you know, as a dog owner, I have no formal, I have
21 no formal myself, training or expertise in dog behaviour, but I do

91
1 ensure that my dogs, are you know, when I am walking them, that they
2 are secure, that I have control of my dog, and that you know, when
3 I am walking them sort of on the right of way or on the road, that
4 I maintain control of my dog and that is both a safety concern for
5 others, I guess, for just my dog's sake, so it doesn't get hit by
6 a car, or you know. So, what I am getting at here, is no, I don't

7 have any formal training, but.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. I think I, I think I don't act any differently than the
10 typical person who ...
11 Q. Thank you, that answered the question, so I what I was going
12 to ask you is two different questions ...(inaudible - low audio) one
13 second. So you say, that you did kick Brindi and your wife did kick
14 Brindi. That Brindi did not turn on you, you were not necessarily
15 concerned that this might turn out to be something where you got
16 bitten, but you were concerned mostly about your dog. I really wish
17 I could remember this question, um.

18 You then reported this the next day. (You took her to the
19 vet's?) Were you at the vet with her?
20 A. I was not.
21 Q. Okay. If we could just back up for a second, now. Before

92
1 you ... oh, I know what the question was. Was it your habit to walk
2 past my house with your dogs?
3 A. Um, it certainly wasn't a habit.
4 Q. At that time of night, as well? Was that kind of a thing
5 that you guys were in the habit of doing?
6 A. No, it certainly wasn't a habit. I guess, I live at 20

7 Pine Lane.
8 Q. That's quite some distance, would you say ... How far
9 would say it is from my home?
10 A. I am not sure, a half a kilometre, maybe a kilometre in
11 distance. We typically walk ... it is not uncommon for us to walk
12 from our house up to near where the Exit 21 route is. So that's a
13 further distance.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. You only have two options on the East Chezzetcook Road.
16 Q. So how many...
17 A. When you get to the end of my lane, you either walk right
18 towards the highway.
19 Q. Right.
20 A. Or you walk left towards the Mines Road.
21 Q. How many times would say that ...

93
1 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, he wasn't finished answering, I
2 believe.
3 MS. ROGIER: Oh. He did answer.
4 THE COURT:: Did you finish your answer, sir?
5 A. Yeah, I am just saying there is only two options, you either
6 walk right or you walk left, there is one road in the community,
7 so ...
8 MS. ROGIER: Yeah, but my questions is...
9 THE COURT:: I think the question ... I think the next
10 question was how often would you walk past...
11 MS. ROGIER: Yeah.
12 A. Oh, oh, at that time ... at that time we were trying to
13 walk our dogs each evening.
14 Q. Past my house?
15 A. Now each even ... now I will just qualify here that, no,
16 we don't always walk past your house. It's ... it's wherever we feel
17 like walking that evening. If we feel like walking up the road, or

18 if we feel like walking down the road.
19 Q. Okay, there was a different impression that your wife made
20 in the account. Because, I personally, have never seen ... have
21 never seen you before, I thought, so it might not surprise you if

94
1 I said that I guess. So have you ever seen me before at the beach
2 or on the street?
3 A. I have not formally met you, no.
4 Q. And had you ever seen Brindi before at any place?
5 A. I am not familiar with Brindi, not in person. I recognize
6 yourself and Brindi from various news stories in the past couple of
7 years and that sort of thing.
8 Q. Do you recall me saying, you know, anything about Brindi
9 and my concern for her, that she would be euthanized?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay, did you have any expectation when you made the report
12 that that could end up happening?
13 A. I don't understand ...
14 Q. Or concern that might lead to a euthanization for Brindi?
15 A risk for that?
16 A. Um.
17 Q. Such that you considered, though, let me put it this way

18 and then you can answer the question. In your mind, was the most
19 important, knowing what had transpired, which I assume you know at
20 least a little bit, that Brindi was, you know, impounded for about
21 two years. And a long trial and a court case and so on, and that
95
1 the law was quashed because of her, which meant that no one can go
2 and seize your dog just because they said so, that there would have
3 to be a court involvement and so on, and that that is a significant
4 change, and the amount of trouble that that has caused me personally
5 as you could see when I came by house that it wasn't finished...
6 THE COURT: I am not sure ... you have to ask a question.

7 MS. ROGIER: I wanted to ask if he had weighed that in his
8 mind. When you made your report, did it occur to you, or go through
9 your mind at all, what the implications might be because of the ways
10 that attacks are registered. I mean attacks are prosecuted.
11 A. So I guess what you are trying to ask me is what is the
12 basis for my reporting this to some extent.
13 Q. I'd say, I'd say, no. The question is really did it ...
14 was it part of your process of thinking or decision making?
15 A. Um, I certainly recall ... I will just kind of back up here.
16 I certainly recall when this happened kneeling down and checking my
17 dog for injuries. You came over and you showed some concern for sure,
18 of my dog and you asked if she was okay. You then proceed to say
19 something to the effect, something like, Do you know who I am? I
20 have been trying to, I have been fighting for me dog for the last
21 two years, something to that effect.

96
1 Q. But that's not my ... could you please answer my question.
2 THE COURT: No, no ...(inaudible - talkover)
3 A. I am getting there. I am getting there. I am just trying
4 to make sense of how I'm answering this. So when we were walking
5 away or at some point you had said, made a comment that if you report
6 this, they are going to kill my dog. And sure, yeah, when I made
7 the report I thought, well you know, if that's the case that the dog
8 is euthanized or dies, you know I ... sure, I feel awful about that.
9 But by the same account, the reason why I am making this complaint
10 is because people walking down the road shouldn't be, you know, have
11 their dog attacked by dogs that are jumping out of car windows and
12 running towards them. In the middle of a road, at 9:00 at night,
13 with low visibility, on a road that people typically drive 80
14 kilometres an hour on. It's a very dangerous scenario. I thought,
15 I was very upset.
16 MS. ROGIER: Okay. Yeah.
17 A. Okay, yeah, and so I am just trying to walk my dog and this

18 is sort the result of that is a bit beyond comprehension.
19 Q. So if you weighed that, that kind of incident and the
20 consequences for that, were you sort of willing to go along with the
21 idea that that kind of thing would go beyond a fine to actually

97
1 ...(inaudible) under A-300, I don't know if you are familiar with
2 it, the dog law, with respect to animals by-law, incidents like this
3 are typically fined.
4 And there are very easy ways to have a dog labeled dangerous,
5 which is any dog that has attacked ...
6 THE COURT: I don't know if the witness, ...

7 MS. ROGIER: If you ...
8 THE COURT: Just a minute. I don't know if the witness
9 would necessary have knowledge of the Municipality and the by-laws
10 and so on. I think you are getting a little bit off track a bit with
11 ... this witness can respond to your questions about the incident
12 that is being alleged.
13 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I am just trying to get a sense of
14 where he ... what his state of mind was, and how much aware he was
15 of what that, you know ...
16 THE COURT: So I think what you are saying is did this
17 witness know about your dog, Brindi, possibly being the same dog that
18 he had heard, that he had perhaps heard about the past experiences
19 that you have had with Brindi, maybe that's the question and as a
20 result did that cause him to make the decision that he made about
21 reporting?
98
1 MS. ROGIER: Thank you. And actually that leads to a
2 question that I would also like to ask.
3 THE COURT: Okay, did you want to ask the witness that then?
4 MS. ROGIER: Yes. I think he ... yes, please answer the
5 question.
6 A. I guess what I can answer is whether or not this dog was

7 Brindi and the owner is yourself, if this scenario had occurred with
8 any other dog owner despite the history of that dog, or the owner,
9 I still would have reported this incident on the basis that this was
10 an extremely frightening experience and no one should have to deal
11 with it. This is ...
12 MS. ROGIER: Okay, thank you. I agree with you there.
13 THE COURT: Okay, did you finish your question?
14 A. Yeah.
15 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry, Your Honour.
16 THE COURT: That's quite all right.
17 MS. ROGIER: May I ask then, in your opinion, what would be

18 a reasonable way to address this incident that happened and the
19 distress that it caused and ...(inaudible - low audio) what would
20 be appropriate in your mind, as a member of the community...
21 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, she is essentially asking him to

99
1 give an opinion on what sentence should be imposed. I don't think
2 that is appropriate.
3 MS. ROGIER: Your, Honour. I think it is very, very
4 appropriate and relevant because in the past, there has been an impact
5 on my dog and me personally by the opinion ...
6 THE COURT: No, no, but this, I am sorry. But you are going
7 too far afield with, do you just want to focus in on this witness...
8 MS. ROGIER: I just want his opinion.
9 THE COURT: And the questions that you put to the witness
10 about the allegations that were made, and the report that was made
11 about your dog on September 14, 2010, just to narrow in on that.
12 That's where we are going with this case.
13 MS. ROGIER: May I ask then, one more question. Would you
14 have ... so are you saying if I am understanding correctly, you would
15 have reported this, pretty much, that was the most important thing
16 to you, was to just report it, and that after that it wasn't your
17 concern, really, would you say? And that if it was Brindi or hadn't
18 been Brindi you would have just made the report?
19 A. Yeah, I maintained that despite whichever dog, or whomever
20 owns the dog, that doesn't matter. What I am reporting is the
21 incident.
100
1 Q. Okay, so you...
2 A. I have no particular, you know, I don't have really any
3 say in terms of what the resolution of this is. I am simply reporting
4 a matter that I thought was terrifying and, two, no one should go
5 through and, three, I think there is an onus on people to report
6 instances like this, because this is extremely dangerous. I don't

7 think...
8 MS. ROGIER: I agree with you.
9 THE COURT: Just a minute, let him answer.
10 MS. ROGIER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 A. So, the basis, I want to be very clear, the basis for my
12 reporting this incident is very clearly laid on the incident itself.
13 No past history, nothing of any sorts. It was just clearly that
14 incident was terrifying and I felt it had to be reported. I would
15 maintain that if I was in a scenario where my dog attacked another
16 dog in similar circumstance, I would not be surprised if the owner
17 of the other dog were to make a similar complaint, if anything I would

18 have an expectation they probably would.
19 MS. ROGIER: Okay. Could you please just do me one favour,
20 and just try to confine your responses to the question that I am
21 asking.
101
1 THE COURT: Well, I did, I did believe that he did respond
2 reasonably to your question.
3 MS. ROGIER: As a yes or no. Well, can you say with absolute
4 certainty exactly where you standing and where this incident occurred
5 at the time when it occurred? Could you say with precision, yes or
6 no?
7 MS. SALSMAN: I don't think he is required to respond with yes
8 or no, just to clarify, Your Honour.
9 A. Do I respond with yes or no, is that?
10 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour.
11 THE COURT: Well ...
12 MS. ROGIER: It's a simple question.
13 A. It's a relative ... I have a relatively good understanding
14 of where I was, I know that. When the dogs were engaged and I was
15 kicking Brindi, or kicking the dog that was attacking mine, I know
16 that I was standing on asphalt. So I was in the road.
17 Q. And yet you also say that you weren't really sure when you
18 were very close up to your dog, or on the same (space?) you couldn't
19 really tell if she was hurt or anything?
20 A. Well, the area where the dog was examined and the area where
21 my dog was attacked are two separate areas. After my dog was attacked
102
1 it ran up the road. My wife and I walked a short distance, not very
2 far, but a little ways up, you know, a few feet towards her, away
3 from whether the attack took place and that is where she came when
4 we examined her. So we are talking about two different spots here.
5 Q. Okay, can you recall, how, when you moved up the road then,
6 were you closer or farther from the street light? From the position
7 that the attack took place in?
8 A. I am not actually sure. I think we were closer to the
9 light. I remember trying to examine my dog in some sort of light.
10 Q. So if you were closer to the light, then you would have
11 been further up the road towards your house, and if you were during
12 the attack, further to the left. Then you would have been in darker
13 space actually.
14 A. Yeah. I am not absolutely certain of the location of this
15 street light. What I will qualify is that the attack took place
16 closer to certainly to, I guess, your driveway and your residence
17 and my dog ran up the road, I guess, technically towards my house

18 and then I sort of followed her and called her to me, so at that point
19 I was closer, I guess further up road.
20 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, for the record, I would just like
21 to say that direction was, indeed, closer to the...

103
1 THE COURT: You can respond on your own, should you testify,
2 you can certainly respond to that.
3 MS. ROGIER: Okay, so I am just trying to think if there is
4 anything ... I guess this is backing up a little bit, but is it fair
5 to ask how many details, or did you follow the story of Brindi at
6 all when it was going on?

7 A. Not really. I lived in New Brunswick at the time.
8 Q. Oh did you. When did you move here?
9 A. Um, I moved sometime, it was in the fall of 2009. I think
10 it was around October.
11 Q. Fall of 2009. So the trial was starting around then and
12 it ended in the spring, so during that time did you follow anything
13 about it or...
14 A. I certainly didn't follow the case very closely. I was
15 aware that there was, you know, a case regarding yourself and the
16 dog named Brindi, and I was aware of you know, I guess the end of
17 that case and some of the resolution, but I certainly couldn't give
18 you details.
19 Q. Were you concerned about it all, to find out how it ended,
20 whether she would be put down or not?
21 A. I can't say I voluntarily or tried to, you know, understand

104
1 what was going on. I think, if anything, my knowledge of the case
2 is just because of its presence in the media. You know, I am
3 not ...
4 Q. Excuse me?
5 A. What knowledge I have of the case and its resolution was
6 from media broadcasts and so on. It's not something that I

7 really followed actively.
8 MS. ROGIER: Okay. This may seem like I am off the subject,
9 Your Honour, but it really isn't. Can I ask you when you got married?
10 THE COURT: That's off the subject.
11 MS. ROGIER: He married into ... you married the Pettipas ...
12 THE COURT: That's off the subject, madam. It's got
13 nothing to do with the subject.
14 MS. ROGIER: Now you talked earlier about your dog and about
15 going to training, and so on. And that you tried to keep it under
16 control at all times, so that they are not frightening anyone or
17 getting out of line, right. In your account...

18 A. While walking, sorry...
19 Q. When the officers came, an officer came to your home at
20 some point later on, I don't know if you were present, if you weren't
21 present then I'll strike the questions, at some point there was an
105
1 account that said that an officer of the RCMP came to speak with you
2 or your wife, or both of you at your home.
3 A. So following the incident, we went to ...
4 Q. Excuse me. I don't mean at that time, that night. But
5 at a later date ...
6 A. Oh. Yes, okay.

7 Q. ...(inaudible)
8 A. Yes, there was, yes, I believe the officer you, we are
9 thinking of here is Paul Trainer (sp?), with I believe it's Halifax
10 Police, I am not sure if he is with RCMP or not, but yes, he did come
11 and see me and ask me questions related to the incident.
12 Q. Okay, and your two dogs were there at the time?
13 A. But, what?
14 Q. Did you have smaller puppy and an older dog, Lucy?
15 A. Oh, actually when Mr. Trainer interviewed me, or collected
16 a statement from me, it was at my workplace.
17 Q. Oh, I see, so you weren't there when they interviewed ...

18 he interviewed your wife at the home?
19 A. My wife was interviewed on a separate occasion at our home,
20 but I think I was outside at that time, I wasn't actually in the house
21 when the interview was taking place.

106
1 Q. When people come to your house in general, how do your dogs
2 respond? Do they stay ...
3 A. No.
4 Q. ... and follow a command that you tell them to stay back,
5 or do they greet the person and how do they greet the person?
6 A. My dogs will get, they are excited when someone comes to

7 the door. They will sniff people, they'll trying to, you know,
8 occasionally they will try to jump up and we are trying to get them
9 to not jump up on people and...
10 Q. But they will do that on occasion, they will jump and...
11 A. Yeah, I think they are acting like regular dogs, I guess.
12 We are trying to get them to stop from jumping. They will go up,
13 they will smell people. They are excited to see someone there. You
14 know, I will note, I am not sure if this is an appropriate time to
15 do so or not. But I will note that my dog, Lucy, who was involved
16 in this incident, is very anxious since this incident. And I find
17 that her reaction to the slightest of things, noises and so on is

18 she seems very anxious and she never to me seemed like that prior
19 to this incident.
20 Q. And you are saying that this is your opinion as a person
21 who has hasn't studied dog behaviour.

107
1 A. This is my opinion as the owner of the dog, I guess who
2 has observed (it for a year?)
3 Q. And this is your perception of this. I just want to
4 testify that it's an opinion.
5 A. Sorry.
6 Q. I mean, we established that, you can only speak in that

7 way.
8 THE COURT: No, he was just ... the witness was just
9 responding to your question and what he knows of his own dog, that's
10 all. That's all. He wasn't given an opinion on dog behaviour, he
11 was just talking about his own dog has behaved, past and present.
12 MS. ROGIER: Yes, I just wonder if the witness would accept
13 the proposition that perhaps the way he sees his dog might be coloured
14 by other things and not necessarily very scientific reasoning, so
15 that's I'll I am asking, saying, Your Honour. There are a number
16 of possible reasons why a dog might be anxious and it might be
17 difficult to pinpoint the exact origin of this ...

18 A. I will agree with you completely, I guess. Personally ...
19 Q. That's how he sees it.
20 A. ... knowing my dog, I see a correlation in that, sort of,
21 after my event, my dog seemed to be much more anxious. I am just

108
1 saying that as the owner of my dog, and witnessing her behaviour on
2 a daily basis, I guess so. I have ...
3 Q. Do you see the incident that happened that as you describe
4 as equivalent to the incident that happened at Martinique last summer
5 ... Beach last summer, sorry, Your Honour, where a pit bull was off
6 leash at the beach and attacked a woman and bit her in the throat
7 and face.
8 A. I am not familiar with that case.
9 Q. Okay, if I described that to you, again, would you consider
10 that an equivalent incident to the one that you experienced, in terms
11 of they should both have the same kind of punishment, or same kind
12 of fine.
13 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, again, this is going back to asking
14 for ...
15 MS. ROGIER: Well, he's ...(inaudible - talkover)
16 MS. SALSMAN: ... opinions about what sentence is appropriate
17 and I don't believe that that is appropriate question for this

18 witness, Your Honour.
19 MS. ROGIER: Well, let me rephrase it in terms of equivalent,
20 in terms of the impact on the dogs, and the impact on the people.
21 THE COURT: I think it's fair that this witness, you can't
109
1 put that type of question to this witness. He can't really answer
2 that.
3 MS. ROGIER: Are you concerned now about that idea, about
4 comparing ... using the same sort of sentence regardless ...
5 THE COURT: No, then you are going down the same road, again.
6 The witness is not qualified to answer.

7 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry, Your Honour. I regard you as a
8 member of the community who has a say in laws that are drafted and
9 you, sir, certainly are member of the population that is affected
10 by the laws and as a person who is an educated person and is aware
11 of society, I would not be surprised that you might take an interest
12 in these sorts of things. So that's why I am interested in knowing
13 more about how you see you things as, you know, as it relates to the
14 way you described this particular incident.
15 A. My understanding, if I am incorrect, I am here today to
16 provide some sort of testimony to the statements I provided, and I
17 guess, the incident I have reported. I am not ... I am not in no

18 way, nor do I think I have to sort of pass any kind of comment in
19 terms of what the existing laws dictate and what, you know, what those
20 are and my opinion of those.
21 THE COURT: No, no that's right, you are correct.

110
1 MS. ROGIER: At any time after or during that incident did
2 it occur to you to maybe make contact with me to let me know how your
3 dog was, or that you might inform me about what you were going to
4 do as far as reporting as a neighbour?
5 A. Could you repeat that question?
6 Q. Did you consider the options, let's say, of you know, I

7 expressed some concern about your dog, as you say, and it seemed
8 sincere. Did you personally, you know, consider at any point in the
9 days following that perhaps you might, as a courtesy as a neighbour,
10 one neighbour to another, who you might to redress, and so on, to
11 call and see how, and let me know how your dog was or even inquire
12 how my dog was?
13 THE COURT: I think the question might be, did you call me
14 to find out how my dog was or to advise me how your dog was, and that's
15 the questions. Was there any call made?
16 A. No. And nor did I make any attempt to contact yourself
17 about that, no.

18 Q. Can you explain why?
19 A. Yeah, I guess it really never crossed my mind, I never
20 thought, even I guess to call or inquire. The reason, you know, I
21 am going to go back to this, I guess, to some extent. When the

111
1 incident occurred, there was some conversation, yes. At the very
2 beginning you sort of indicated that you were concerned for my dog,
3 and it's well-being, but after that, shortly after that, the
4 conversation then turned to the fact that you were ... you seemed
5 very preoccupied with the fact that I may report this incident, and
6 that if by doing so, they may kill your dog.

7 Q. Was that a factor in then in deciding that ...
8 A. Well, just let me finishing answering the question.
9 Q. I thought you had stopped, I am sorry.
10 A. From there, it escalated further. I know that when we
11 walking away, there was some sort of comment to the effect of, You
12 know, so, I think you said you were asking, So are you going to report
13 this, and I think my wife said, who was quite upset said, Yes we are
14 report this incident. We are going to report this.
15 Q. ...(inaudible) Okay.
16 A. And, I think you had made a comment to the effect of
17 something like, You are going to report this. They are going to kill
18 my dog. I hope you can live with yourself. Or, so, you know, I
19 think, based on the incident and the sort, of the exchange and as
20 crazy of a scenario this is, I had no intention of sort of following
21 up. You know, besides that, when I made my complaint, or filed my

112
1 complaint with HRM, and Animal Services followed up with me, they
2 also indicated that there had been a complaint formed against me with
3 respect, to something to the effect of my dog attacking yourself while
4 you were taking groceries out of your car, or something to that
5 extent, so. Um, you know, in view of the fact that there was sort
6 of a counterclaim of sorts that my dog attacked you, I felt that I

7 had no position to contact and see how your dog's doing, and know,
8 how things are going.
9 Q. So it didn't cross your mind that maybe you had mis, you
10 know, sort of misperceived events and might want to come together
11 and settle later on to resolve it amongst ourselves or anything.
12 Considering that there was a great deal more at stake for my dog.
13 THE COURT: No, I think the witness has answered that
14 question for you.
15 MS. ROGIER: Okay, Your Honour. You laughed a little bit
16 just now when you were talking, answering my questions actually,
17 before you spoke about this report that you had heard about. When
18 you were just going about why you, you know, talking about whether
19 to contact me later, I noticed you were kind of chuckling about it.
20 And yet at the same time, you also can see that I expressed a great
21 deal of serious concern, sincere concern of your dog's welfare at

113
1 that time. And was I interpreting you correctly there?
2 A. I think I am think I just, if I did laugh, I guess, I am
3 trying to recollect this, trying to answer your questions the best
4 I can, here. I will just be honest, I had no intention of calling
5 and following up and that is in view of the things I have just said.
6 Perhaps I am laughing at the fact that I just never thought of it,

7 it never crossed my mind and I am a bit, perhaps surprised at the
8 questions, anyway?
9 Q. I don't know, we could check the record, but I believe you
10 were, ...(inaudible) well, you were saying at the time you were kind
11 of smiling and sort of chuckling a little bit as you spoke, but you
12 were talking actually about the fact that my dog might be killed.
13 THE COURT: No, I think once, again, Ms. Rogier, the witness
14 has answered the question.
15 MS. ROGIER: That's what I wonder, how important it was to
16 you...
17 THE COURT: The witness has answered the question.

18 MS. ROGIER: Thank you, no more questions.
19 THE COURT:: Anything on re-direct?
20 MS. SALSMAN: No, nothing.
21 THE COURT: Thank you so much, Mr. Simms, again.

114
DISCUSSION
1 MR. SIMMS: Thanks.
2 WITNESS WITHDREW (TIME: 14:41 hrs)
3 THE COURT: Did you ask?
4 MS. SALSMAN: I believe Mr. Simms was going to get his wife,
5 it just may take a minute for her to collect herself.
6 MS. SALSMAN: Our next witness is ...

7 THE COURT: We will do cross-examination for Mrs. Simms'
8 return.
9 MS. SALSMAN: fine.
10 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry, I didn't hear that? Recall?
11 MS. SALSMAN: We are recalling Katie Simms ...
12 THE COURT: [coughing] Excuse me ...
13 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, would it be possible to recall her
14 at a later date as I haven't been able to refresh my memory about
15 questions that I wanted to ask her at this point?
16 THE COURT: No. It won't be, madam. She has been here all
17 day. She was here on the last date for trial, as I said before you
18 have had ...
19 MS. ROGIER: As I explained ...
20 THE COURT: You have had many months to prepare and you know,
21 you certainly have a handle of things from the sounds of things from
115
DISCUSSION
1 the cross-examination of Mr. Simms.
2 MS. ROGIER: Thank you, Your Honour, I take that as a
3 compliment.
4 THE COURT: All right, so I am sorry. But we have got to
5 keep going here. At some point, things have to proceed.
6 MS. ROGIER: If I could just explain why I asked that, it's

7 just that I did have a shake this morning, and a twisted ... and I
8 am not feeling 100 percent healthy and it did affect my ability to
9 think clearly right now, and recall. So I am having difficulties,
10 so I just wanted to explain that. And there was a reason. And that
11 my morning was very bad. And I feel very bad that people were here
12 and waited, but I was freezing in the cold for about two hours, and
13 solid, freezing my feet and everything, so ...
14 THE COURT: I appreciate that, but I think...
15 MS. ROGIER: I didn't purposely, in other words, stay away
16 from the court, Your Honour.
17 THE COURT: I understand.

18 MS. ROGIER: And that's what I wanted you to take into
19 consideration, please.
20 THE COURT: We'll just have Ms. Simms re-sworn, yes please,
21 yes.
116
1 CATHERINE SIMMS, recalled, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: Just state your name and spell your last name
4 for the record?
5 A. My name is Catherine Simms. And my last name is spelled
6 S-I-M-M-S.
7 THE COURT: You are just returning, Ms. Simms, for cross-
8 examination this afternoon, so I appreciate that. And Ms. Rogier,
9 she will start.
10
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION
12
13 MS. ROGIER: Okay, and I want to apologize for my lateness
14 today, but I did explain that. I was in a car accident on East
15 Chezzetcook Road at a very tricky curve, "S" curve, and it's a very
16 tight curve and I went almost slipping over on, you know where the
17 old school is, where it drops about...

18 THE COURT: All right, madam, just please carry on.
19 MS. ROGIER: And I do want to apologize, if you don't mind
20 ...(inaudible) We just heard from your husband a little bit about
21 to supplement what he had said earlier, and we have your report. It's
117
CATHERINE SIMMS, Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 been some time since I read them, so I will try to, best I can to
2 ask you to recall the questions I wanted to ask you. When this
3 incident occurred on September 14, 2010, had you ever seen me
4 personally before?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And where was that?

7 A. Um, probably a couple years prior, I gave your car a jump.
8 Q. Oh, that's okay, it's hard for me to remember because it's
9 so long ago.
10 A. Yeah, I think you had maybe, a little Honda at the time.
11 A little red Honda.
12 Q. Okay. Did I have a dog with me then?
13 A. Ah, I don't recall.
14 Q. Um, let's see. When you ... what was in your mind the night
15 that you came, that you were walking your dog that night as you passed
16 my house, before this happened before I arrived home?
17 A. Yeah, I glanced over at your home, and noticed that

18 although your red vehicle was in the yard, there didn't appear to
19 be any lights on. It didn't appear like anyone was home.
20 Q. So there was a different car that came into the driveway
21 that night then when you saw me?

118
1 A. Prior to the attack, yes.
2 Q. So when ... where were you standing when you say my car
3 that drove into the driveway. How well can you recall it, I would
4 say?
5 A. We were kind of approaching your home on the east side of
6 the East Chezzetcook Road, sorry the west side of the East Chezzetcook
7 Road, and we were about 10-12 feet prior to your driveway, and I was
8 on the gravel holding a flashlight. My husband was walking our dog
9 on the pavement.
10 Q. Okay, so would you be able to say whether that gravel was
11 part of my gravel driveway or part of the shoulder?
12 A. No, no, it was quite, quite before your home, about 10-12
13 feet prior to your driveway.
14 Q. And are ... you were then able to see that in that light?
15 A. Yeah, because we say a car approaching and as you were
16 approaching we um, we slowed down because it seemed like, it looked
17 like your car was trying to come into the driveway before it would
18 have to wait to let us pass, it kind of scooted in quite quickly before
19 we got as far as your driveway.
20 Q. That summer was the first time that Brindi had been home
21 in about two years, as you're probably aware. Is that correct, you

119
1 were aware that she had come home?
2 A. (No audible response)
3 Q. Do you recall saying anything in your statement here, or
4 could you elaborate on something that I remember that you said in
5 the statement about hearing something from a friend about seeing
6 Brindi without her muzzle on?

7 A. I don't think I said anything in my statement to that
8 effect.
9 Q. I recall there was some comment that you made, you were
10 recounting a conversation or something ...
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. ... you had heard.
13 A. Yeah. Actually I think it was something in my statement
14 about walking up to my parents' home seeing Brindi and her dog friend
15 without a muzzle, but at that time I wasn't aware of any conditions,
16 or whether she needed a muzzle on, or whatever.
17 Q. What I am thinking of actually is that someone had said

18 something to you about it, about seeing Brindi and your comment, if
19 I could just, maybe the record could be checked later on, but, this
20 was something that has stayed in my mind a long time and it was a
21 comment that I believe you made here that something to the effect
120
1 that someone that you knew told you about either them or someone else
2 seeing Brindi, reportedly allegedly, without a muzzle on and your
3 ... you expressed the thought that maybe they should do something
4 and call and so on and report it.
5 A. I don't think that was in my personal statement to Animal
6 Services.
7 Q. No, I am not, well, to the RCMP officer, I believe.
8 A. Yeah, I am trying to think of ... I know I heard CBC
9 interview with a dog kennel owner/trainer in Halifax who reported
10 seeing a You Tube video of your dog without a muzzle at the building
11 at the ... I am not sure what the building is called.
12 It's like a rec centre behind your home in the ballpark, that there
13 was like a welcome home Brindi party, and although it was after the
14 muzzle order was in place, Brindi was on a You Tube video without
15 a muzzle on ...
16 Q. Actually, that ...(inaudible) The truth is, if (you ran
17 it?) you'd see she's on ... she has a muzzle. When she's in an
18 enclosed space, she ...
19 A. Ah, it was just something I heard on the CBC, so that might
20 be what you are referring to maybe?
21 Q. No, okay, well, I can check that later, but you don't, at
121
1 this time, you don't remember.
2 A. I don't recall ...
3 Q. I wish I could find it, because it concerned me that ...
4 I wondered that you had some sort of, thought in your mind that you
5 saw Brindi as a threat that you wanted to make sure ...
6 A. I did. I definitely saw Brindi as a threat, yes.

7 Q. How well informed would you say, like, well, it's hard for
8 you to say if you don't really know how much there is to know, but,
9 in terms of the actual incident that lead to Brindi's seizure that
10 would colour, you know, sort of lead you to you're feeling about it?
11 A. Well, just neighbours and other community members who have
12 had their dogs attacked, just kind of their experience, what I have
13 heard in the community.
14 Q. So sometimes directly from someone and sometimes directly
15 not directly from someone.
16 A. I couldn't say. I mean sometimes the media.
17 Q. Okay. And so when it became clear in our discussion

18 immediately following this incident, and your husband, I believe,
19 in my recollection told me that he thought your dog was okay, and
20 I asked you, APlease don't report her.@ Do you recall that?
21 A. Yeah.
122
1 Q. Okay, so that I said, APlease don't report her, they'll come
2 and take her and kill her.@
3 A. You said, AIs your dog okay?@ We said we don't know, and
4 you seemed very concerned. And knelt down and we said we didn't know,
5 we couldn't see in the lighting. You said, APlease don't report this.
6 You must know who I am. I have been fighting HRM for two years now.
7 If you report this they'll kill my dog.@
8 Q. Right. Do you recall what your response was?
9 A. At first I said, I think I was saying, AI don't know if we
10 are going to report this. We have to go look into this to make sure
11 our dog is okay. I have to bring her in the light.@ And then you
12 continued to plead. We figured there was no point in talking with
13 you so we reattached her leash and we proceeded up the road. And
14 at that point, you said something along the lines of, They are going
15 to kill my dog. I hope you can live with yourself. And I said, AYour
16 fucking dog jumped out of a fucking car window and attacked my dog.
17 I will be reporting this.

18 Q. So is that the exact words, that you ...
19 A. Pretty much.
20 Q. I have a different ... how about this, if this would make
21 sense to you, I recall you saying, AI don't give a fuck about anybody's
123
1 else's dog but mine.@
2 A. I don't recall.
3 Q. Is that something that you could have said, because that's
4 how I remember it?
5 A. I don't recall that. I don't recall that.
6 Q. Did you ... were you actually going back to your house then
7 as you walked away?
8 A. No.
9 Q. And I was trying to, you know, discuss it with you a little
10 bit with you, did you stay and discuss, or did you...
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. Would you say that I was very upset about that, after
13 knowing that your, your dog was okay. That I was concerned about
14 ...
15 A. I am assuming you would be upset. Because you were asking
16 us not to report it, and you were worried about your dog being killed.
17 Q. Are you related to Lloyd Pettipas?

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are you related to Bonnie Pettipas?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are related to June Pettipas?

124
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. (Guy?) Pettipas?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you, these are all people who were involved in the
5 trial against Brindi ...
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. ... for a long time.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what do you do for work for employment?
10 A. I am a social worker.
11 Q. Is it the habit for social workers in a public space to
12 say, AI don't give a fuck about anybody's dog but mine@?
13 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I don't think this is an
14 appropriate question.
15 A. I ....
16 THE COURT: Just a minute, just a minute.
17 MS. SALSMAN: I don't think that's an appropriate question to

18 be giving opinions, I don't see the relevance of that question, Your
19 Honour.
20 MS. ROGIER: I think it's a fair question.
21 THE COURT: I would agree, that the relevance is not there.

125
1 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I think the relevance, well, then
2 if I could suggest.
3 THE COURT: No, the relevance ... well, it's my decision
4 that counts and I find the relevance is not there.
5 MS. ROGIER: All right. I wasn't going to say my opinion
6 about the relevance, I was just going to suggest that there might
7 be, sometimes when people report things to the authorities ...
8 THE COURT: Move on, move on.
9 MS. ROGIER: They are motivated by different things.
10 THE COURT: Move on, the Court's made its decision on the
11 objection.
12 MS. ROGIER: Okay. So you don't recall saying anything at
13 all about somebody else supposedly seeing this, okay. When the RCMP
14 officers came to your home, or one RCMP officer, correct, came to
15 you home after the incident a couple of days later?
16 A. Ummmm.
17 Q. I don't know exactly what day that was, but that was another
18 day.
19 A. Not the night of the ... an RCMP came to my parents' home
20 the night of.
21 Q. Right. And so, by the way the ... when you talk about your
126
1 dogs, and how she was affected by this you use the word Aspots@. AShe
2 inspected her, and shaved her spots.@ You were describing wounds
3 presumably, when you were talking about that?
4 A. I am assuming, I would have to look at my ...
5 Q. Well, I'll read it, okay, so let's see. ADr. Minty, or
6 somebody saw her? And she kind of inspected her and shaved her spots
7 and I took some pictures." This would be I guess would be the next
8 morning?
9 A. Okay, and this is out of ah...
10 THE COURT: Did you want to show the statements to the
11 witness to refresh her memory?
12 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I am wondering if this should be
13 marked as an exhibit at this point.
14 THE COURT: I don't think so, I think, just we are okay.
15 MS. ROGIER: If not, I would like to enter the transcripts.
16 THE COURT: Just a second, here's what you will do. You
17 will show the witness the statement. Just ask her to look if that's
18 her signature. I presume there's a signature at the bottom of the
19 statement? Just to make sure...
20 MS. ROGIER: This is a transcript, Your Honour, of the
21 recording.
127
1 THE COURT: Oh, it's not the actual statement.
2 MS. SALSMAN: An interview with police, Your Honour.
3 THE COURT: Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought it was an actual
4 police statement. Oh, I see, I apologize, so you feel it should go
5 in as an exhibit? Do you have an extra copy of it?
6 MS. SALSMAN: Well, in terms of the best evidence Your Honour,

7 just to have an actual copy of the...
8 THE COURT: Of the actual transcript. Because it's going
9 to be used partially, I see what you mean. Is there an extra copy
10 that we can do that with, I don't know?
11 MS. ROGIER: I think it would be appropriate if the Crown went
12 to the trouble to get them professional transcribed, they are very
13 useful in that sense. Much more ...(inaudible)
14 THE COURT: I ... I we could make a copy, we could have a
15 copy made. Sorry, so I beg your pardon, you can identify, I thought
16 it was a statement that was taken by the police and was signed. Did
17 we wanted to have it exhibited? We can, Ms. Hines could make a copy

18 within a minute or so.
19 MS. ROGIER: Could we do that as soon as I read three more
20 lines, and then I'll turn it over ...
21 THE COURT: That's fine.

128
1 MS. ROGIER: It's just that during the cross questioning I
2 really, rather need this thing.
3 THE COURT: We will just keep a copy for the Court.
4 MS. ROGIER: Okay. So it goes on, Dr. Minty, or the vet or
5 somebody, AShe kind of inspected her and shaved her spots and I took
6 some pictures. And we took pictures that night, too and they put
7 her on ... she cleaned it and she told me buy hydrogen peroxide and
8 clean it. And she put her on an antibiotic just to make sure that
9 there was no infection that came of it," and so on.
10 Would that seem like something that's in the recording, I just
11 wanted to note that you used the word Aspots@. Okay.
12 A. That's a potential, yeah.
13 Q. Okay, so when this immediately happened, how long did it
14 take before, you know, after you got to your father's house which,
15 I believe you went to, instead of your own house, by the way how far
16 did I follow you that you remember, as you walked up the driveway,
17 did I follow you up the driveway to your house?

18 A. We didn't walk up his driveway?
19 Q. How did you get to his house?
20 A. We walked up a neighbour's driveway.
21 Q. Why did you that?

129
1 A. Because we didn't want you to connect my parents to what
2 went on.
3 Q. Why would that be? I have no issue with your parents?
4 A. Because you were pleading with us, and we worried that you
5 were going to follow us, well, I was worried. So, I instructed my
6 husband, I said, ALet's go up another driveway, I don't want her coming

7 up to my dad's house.@
8 Q. Why were you worried?
9 A. Because that's how I felt at that time. You were pleading,
10 we were exchanging words, and I didn't want to walk up to my parents'
11 house with you right there.
12 Q. Did I use any obscenities, as you recall?
13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. Do you think you would have if I had.
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Um, did, as far as you know, there was nothing, I mean,
17 certainly I feel that way between me and your parents as far as being
18 neighbours, that had been the source of any grounds for you to want
19 to conceal that you went to his house.
20 THE COURT: Okay, but I think, the witness has answered your
21 question, and that's it.

130
1 MS. ROGIER: I think that's an interesting development that
2 happened. Um, because I had, I knew only that you were Katie Simms.
3 That you introduced yourself.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So I had no expectation that you would go anywhere,
6 particularly anywhere other than somewhere on the road.

7 A. Okay.
8 Q. So and then you were very concerned, it seems like to make
9 the report.
10 A. After our exchange of words I was angry.
11 Q. And you called the police.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You were advised by some other office to wait 'til the
14 morning and call dispatch.
15 A. I called the wrong office, I called like, Advance Wildlife
16 Control, or something. And they said that I needed to call HRM Animal
17 Services and that their office would be open in the morning.

18 Q. Uh-huh.
19 A. And I asked them if it would appropriate to call the police,
20 and they it was up to me.
21 Q. When you are under stress, and you were under stress, I
131
1 guess, that night, do you ever say things you regret later, or do
2 things you regret later?
3 A. I am under stress a lot during my regular job, and I am
4 usually pretty, pretty calm and able to, you know, that's why we were
5 able to take the steps that we took that night.
6 Q. Do you regret anything that you said to me that night?

7 A. No.
8 Q. So it's okay to let a statement stand like, AI don't give
9 a fuck about anybody's dog...@
10 A. I don't remember saying that.
11 Q. Would it bother you, if you had said it. I mean, would
12 that be a concern?
13 THE COURT: Well, she just said she didn't remember saying
14 it.
15 MS. ROGIER: Well, it is conjecture, I guess. Okay, and you
16 have no recollection of the statements, which I can't find, were there
17 two interviews? Were there two audio interview of ...

18 MS. SALSMAN: I believe just the one.
19 MS. ROGIER: No, there is one here, I guess. Oh, that's not,
20 I am just checking, and Michelle Steen was already this morning, the
21 dispatcher?
132
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 MS. ROGIER: Will she be able to be recalled so I can
3 cross-examine her. That's a very important, very important.
4 MS. SALSMAN: She has left, Your Honour.
5 THE COURT: She has left for the day. Now I know we've got
6 another day scheduled for this matter on March 16, that we may discuss
7 that at the end.
8 MS. ROGIER: It's very important to me because she can speak
9 very much to the claim of Charter breach, Your Honour. She has
10 essential evidence.
11 THE COURT: Okay, well, she has already gone for the day.
12 As I say, we can just deal with that when we, we are not obviously
13 going to finish today I wouldn't think.
14 MS. ROGIER: Okay, all right.
15 THE COURT: So we can discuss that at the end of the day and
16 that shouldn't be a problem.
17 MS. ROGIER: All right. Thank you. So do you recall making

18 a statement in the audio report, you know when you talked to the RCMP
19 that you were kind of keeping an eye on my house at different times
20 of the night, and so on. And talking to your mom about reporting
21 that the lights were on.

133
1 A. Not ... not I don't recall that statement. But, I do
2 recall making a statement that I did look at your home when we were
3 walking by, and I am out of the habit of doing that because of the
4 prior attacks that your dog has done on other dogs in the
5 neighbourhood.
6 Q. Uh-hum.
7 A. So sometimes, if it did appear like you were home, or you
8 know, if there was maybe potential for the dog to be out with you
9 or something, whether it was just going to the car ...
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. I might cross the road to have more distance between myself
12 and your home and the dog.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Just out of safety.
15 Q. Yeah, I remember that you said that. So you were in other
16 words, usually you were a little bit wary about getting close to my
17 house.
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Because you were concerned about Brindi, not me per se,
20 but Brindi.
21 A. Yeah.
134
1 Q. Okay. So then I would like to ask you, why were you walking
2 so close to my house that night.
3 A. We were walking against traffic, as you are supposed to
4 as a pedestrian. So we were walking on ...
5 Q. So you weren't afraid to walk directly past my house. You
6 could have easily still you know, for that bit, you could have crossed
7 the street. You just explained ...
8 A. Right.
9 Q. ... that you crossed the street usually to get away from
10 my house.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. So now you are saying, you are contradicting what you just
13 said.
14 A. No, actually it appeared like you weren't home, and you
15 were actually on your way home. And so that's why we were...
16 Q. I could have been sleeping, it was 9:00 at night, it was
17 pitch black.
18 A. Well, okay, I guess.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. But we had just passed your house about five or ten minutes
21 prior to that, and so it didn't appear, that is just what we did,

135
1 I guess, we didn't cross the road from that.
2 Q. Okay, so um, and were you in the habit of taking a walk
3 that far away from your house.
4 A. Yes. Every night.
5 Q. Really.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. That's interesting. Your husband said otherwise, maybe
8 once maybe twice ...
9 A. Maybe once, maybe twice a day, actually.
10 Q. A day?
11 A. Yeah, or like after work.
12 Q. That's interesting. I never recall seeing you before, I
13 mean it would ... as I said, it I would take a lot of work for me
14 to remember three years earlier, but I certainly don't remember
15 seeing you any earlier than that. So when you made the report, would
16 you have made a report for any dog at all, a dog you had never seen
17 before or heard anything about?

18 A. Um, I don't, I am not sure. I am not sure.
19 Q. Have you ever reported any other dog?
20 A. We have never had an attack by another dog.
21 Q. Okay. Do you know anyone else who has reported another

136
1 dog in the neighbourhood?
2 A. Um, my family, I think has reported a neighbour's dog
3 before that, a ...(hurt?) dog ...
4 Q. Really.
5 A. ... a pet, a family pet.
6 Q. Really, one of your family members?

7 A. Yeah, I am not quite sure if they reported it, I think they
8 did. It ripped it up ... They had a rabbit and the neighbour's dog
9 came into the yard and took a chunk out of the rabbit through the
10 case.
11 Q. Oh.
12 A. So I think, I am not sure, though. That was like 15 years
13 or more ago.
14 Q. Um, is your mother in the habit of being up at four in the
15 morning?
16 MS. SALSMAN: I don't see the relevance in that question.
17 MS. ROGIER: Well, there is a ... you made a remark in your

18 statement amount your mother seeing lights on and talking to you about
19 making a report to tell them that I was home so that they could come
20 and take my dog.
21 A. Oh, I don't know.

137
1 Q. Well, that's in your statement.
2 A. Maybe. People get up to go to the washroom, so there's
3 potential ...
4 Q. This was a discussion between you and your mom about the
5 opportunity, to create the opportunity or let the authorities know
6 that they might then go and take my dog. So I think it is fair to

7 say then, or is it fair to say that you had it in your mind that they
8 would come and take my dog and put her down for the incident that
9 you had with her.
10 A. No, that's not fair to say that, I guess. Um, after the
11 attack, the initial attack, and report that we made that night, you
12 were nowhere to be found for about two weeks. So obviously we were
13 cautious. We didn't walk out dog during that time. We were nervous
14 of walking our dog.
15 Q. But I wasn't home, and you were nervous when I wasn't
16 home ...
17 A. I am not following ...

18 THE COURT: I am not either.
19 MS. ROGIER: You had earlier just said that you walked along
20 my house that night, not only because there was the traffic, you
21 were going against traffic, but because the lights were out and you
138
1 assumed I wasn't there. So now you are saying that for a two-week
2 period, you didn't see any lights or any indication that I was there,
3 but that you were still afraid to go around. So, I am just trying
4 to put this together.
5 A. After our dog, our dog was attacked, we were nervous to
6 walk our dog again until we knew that your dog was taken into care,
7 into custody, or whatever, because we didn't want to walk down to
8 my parents' home again and potentially face your dog again.
9 Q. Your parents' home, though, just to clarify, to get to your
10 parents' home, do you have to pass my house?
11 A. No.
12 Q. No.
13 A. We have to pass by your property ... the side of your
14 property and your dog run.
15 Q. My property is about 60 feet deep. Your dad's is probably
16 about 250 deep, and his driveway goes way in, so you would be pretty
17 much a few steps, but that was a concern for you, then you are saying,
18 is that right? A. Until kind of, until I guess, you were found,
19 we were nervous to walk our dog.
20 Q. So you were nervous before the incident, and you were
21 nervous after the incident.

139
1 A. Yes. More nervous
2 Q. And so you were nervous before the incident because of what
3 you had heard?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. From other people.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And from the media?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Not necessarily that you had taken an interest and read
10 any of my blog, or anything at that time.
11 A. I had no interest in what was going on. I really had no
12 opinion about you or your dog prior to that, even ... I actually didn't
13 live in the area when everything else was going on. I was in another
14 province and moved ... didn't move back to Nova Scotia until November
15 of 2009. So I really didn't ... wasn't connected to what was going
16 on with you and your dog.
17 Q. Are you aware that the trial for my dog started in like,
18 I think it was September, I am sorry, October of 2009 and continued
19 until April, 2010?
20 A. No, I didn't follow it.
21 Q. And you were living here then. But you did hear about it
140
1 from other people and the media you're saying.
2 A. I mean I have walked up my parents' driveway when your dog
3 was out in its dog run and have felt nervous because of its barking.
4 That's ... that's really all I knew of your dog.
5 Q. Do you know of any other dogs in the neighbourhood that
6 bark when people walk by their house?

7 A. Absolutely, yeah.
8 Q. Do you ever see dogs off leash running around in East
9 Chezzetcook?
10 A. I have, yeah.
11 Q. At the beach. Down at the beach?
12 A. Yeah, yeah, at the beach, yeah.
13 Q. Do you recall a black dog that's at the beach that tends
14 to constantly run up to people and threaten them and sometimes get
15 in dog fights down there.
16 A. I don't, I don't.
17 Q. If you had seen that dog, would you report it?

18 A. If it attacked my dog, perhaps.
19 Q. But if it was just at large.
20 MS SALSMAN: Your Honour, this is just speculation.
21 THE COURT: Okay, that's fair, thank you.

141
1 MS. ROGIER: I am just trying to get at your state of mind
2 when you made your decisions because your decisions had a lot of
3 consequences. And, you know, I appreciate that. But here's what
4 ... I was just looking for the part where your mother ... it comes
5 later, where your mother and you were discussing this. Um, I might
6 have a couple of more. So, you say, um, the officer asked you, AHas
7 anything else happened the last couple of days as far as you know
8 on Ms. Rogier's property? Have you seen her around, or seen anybody
9 hanging around the ...@ and you say, AWell, a few nights ago my mom
10 told me the next day that she noticed the lights were on when she
11 got up to go to the bathroom at like quarter to four in the
12 morning ...@
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. "So and she said they weren't on earlier in the night, and
15 since then I told her to call that in to Animal Services.@
16 A. Yeah. I am assuming that that's correct from my
17 statement. I'm not

18 Q. "Like I noticed that the last couple of nights that her
19 lights on as well."
20 A. Uh-hum.
21 Q. "And it might be a timer, or something.@ So then are you

142
1 saying with that, because you live quite a distance ...
2 A. Uh-hum.
3 Q. ... that you were walking by my house the last couple of
4 nights after that incident that you could see lights and so on?
5 A. I probably drove to my parents' home and noticed that.
6 Q. But, again, you have to turn, okay, so you were driving

7 then to your parents'.
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. "And then yesterday I was on my way out from work and my
10 mom called me on the cell phone and said that they noticed that there
11 was a green car in the driveway.@
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. AAnd I said, 'Why don't you get the license plate?' And she
14 said, 'No.' But you know, if it's too busy at the pub for dinner,
15 we'll come home and we'll get the license plate."
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. AWell that wasn't good enough for me. So I came home, I

18 drove down the road and took a, you know, make of the car and the
19 license plate number and that was around 5:30.@
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. AAnd then I called. I came back here and let my dogs out.
143
1 Then I called your number and left a message. And, I kind of debated,
2 and I thought, well, it doesn't hurt for me to call the police.@ Can
3 you explain what you were debating?
4 A. Um.
5 Q. What were you debating about?
6 A. Can you just read that last ...

7 Q. I am sorry.
8 A. ... sentence, maybe.
9 Q. AAnd then I called,@ and it says dot, dot, dot, here, AI came
10 back here and let my dogs out, and then I called your phone number
11 and left a message.@ I take it when you say, AI let my dogs out,@ they
12 are in your fenced yard, or you are tying them up?
13 A. Well, I have a beagle, so I can't let them run free.
14 Q. So which was it? That you tied them up, or you ...
15 A. We probably took them out, or ...
16 Q. You said you let them out.
17 A. Well ... that's what I said.

18 Q. AAnd I kind of debated and I thought, well, it doesn't hurt
19 for me to call the police.@
20 A. Well, okay, yeah, and okay.
21 Q. And what doesn't hurt?

144
1 A. For me to make the decision to call in the license plate
2 in your yard?
3 Q. Why would you debate about that?
4 A. To take the time ...
5 Q. Why would it hurt, is what I am asking?
6 A. To take the time to do that.

7 Q. To take the time to do that.
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. So a ...
10 A. Like whether it's worth it or not to do that.
11 Q. What would make it worth it?
12 A. Well, you were evading your responsibility. You were gone
13 for two weeks. Your dog was nowhere to be found. Our dog had been
14 attacked, and people were looking for you, so we were happy to, if
15 we saw something, someone in your yard, your lights on, we were more
16 than happy to help people bring ...
17 Q. What did you see ...

18 A. ... to be responsible for your dog.
19 Q. What do mean by evading responsibility, exactly?
20 A. Not being available to ... not being available to the
21 police and Animal Services to the attack that happened.

145
1 Q. What would say would be the responsibility if someone had
2 to leave town and they made a report themselves, and then left town,
3 would that be still evading responsibilities?
4 A. Um ...
5 THE COURT: Okay, no, that's just too ... that's a
6 generalized question.
7 MS. ROGIER: Okay, but you were aware that I had made a
8 report, I guess.
9 A. Quite a bit after the fact. Like I didn't know that night
10 or the next day or anything.
11 Q. Okay. So are you aware ... I don't know how she is related
12 to you, but do you know of, you must have because you said you heard
13 in the media and so on, that Bonnie Pettipas has a daughter, I don't
14 know if she is a cousin of yours?
15 A. Distantly perhaps.
16 Q. She goes to the church, the only Catholic Church there I
17 guess.
18 A. But you didn't live in the neighbourhood, you say, until
19 you came back.
20 A. We bought our home in November, 2009, and I moved from New
21 Brunswick mid-December, 2009. So I didn't move in, actually we

146
1 didn't move into our home until into February.
2 Q. Just to clarify also. You have a choice, your husband was
3 telling us, when you walk your dog, you could go all the way ... you
4 could go right or left out of your lane ...
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. And when you come to my house, you are going left, but you
7 have a whole ... there is another stretch of the road that goes the
8 other way ...
9 A. Right. Yeah, yeah.
10 Q. So if you really wanted to avoid my house, and you weren't
11 necessarily going to stop at your dad's, you could also take that
12 option, right, and go that way.
13 A. Yeah, and we have, yeah. But normally we would do at least
14 one walk down to my parents.
15 Q. Right, to you parents. So you wouldn't pass my house then,
16 you wouldn't be walking down past my house.
17 A. Sometimes we might.
18 Q. You would.
19 A. But that night we didn't have ... we didn't bring our puppy
20 with us, so we chose to walk Lucy a little further.
21 Q. After that night, I mean, actually, was that something that

147
1 you did as well, that you would walk down the road past ... on the
2 right side of, going down that way, would you pass my house again.
3 A. Ahh ...
4 Q. By foot, on foot?
5 A. To like ...
6 Q. Just as you were, you know, taking a walk, a typical walk

7 as you did ...
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. ... would you go, you know, to the distance where you would
10 go past your dad's property and past my house after that incident
11 happened, or did you stay away?
12 A. Not for quite, you know what, I don't know if ...
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. ... I might have walked my dog past your house with someone
15 else, but I have been very nervous of, we hardly walk her now, it's
16 unfortunate.
17 Q. But you have lots of options to walk her safely in there.

18 A. Right, yeah. But I am now very nervous of dogs, so
19 Q. Have you been to obedience classes or anything like that
20 with dogs and ...
21 A. Yes.
148
1 Q. And learned about dog behaviour.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. So okay when I see that in the report you said, along those
4 lines you said, "Because I am worried if someone drove up, you know
5 with The Chronicle or someone found out who we are and where we live,
6 they would drive up the driveway and then Lucy ..." and then there's
7 ellipses, and you say, "I mean Lucy barks and runs and jumps on cars
8 sometimes, right, so when they come in our driveway," so when people
9 approach your driveway ...
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. ... your dog barks. Is that correct?
12 A. Um, I, I guess. I am not sure, I know now she does.
13 Q. She does now?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. So she is not all that frightened right now, then, if she
16 is taking a bold ... that's good.
17 A. I don't know what's in her mind when she barks.

18 Q. But she is doing this behaviour where she is not afraid
19 to go out and bark at people apparently, contrary, to you know, the
20 thought that maybe she has been very anxious ridden ever since that
21 night. She is feeling comfortable enough to protect her territory

149
1 by barking, does that make sense?
2 A. I don't ... I .... Prior to the attack, Lucy was, you know,
3 if she barked, like she rarely barked at people. And if a car came
4 up, she would run to the car, so we, any time we had company, we'd
5 make sure that she wasn't able to do that. Obviously you don't want
6 her to jump on people's cars. But ...

7 Q. How is it that she ...
8 THE COURT: Just a minute, just a minute, now, just let the
9 witness answer.
10 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry, Your Honour.
11 A. Yeah, it was like out of excitement, and, but since the
12 attack she is ... she seems frightened and she'll almost ... like
13 she barks in a different way, and she seems more aggressive and it
14 makes us nervous, so she didn't do that before. She would lay down
15 and be submissive and, but, she is now, it's not only with small dogs,
16 it's larger dogs, and that wasn't normal before either because she
17 is so well socialized with larger dogs, so that's a change.

18 Q. I am trying to understand this. Okay, you just a minute
19 ago you said this, when I read it to you, you said, Yes she still
20 barks at dogs, sorry AShe still barks at cars that come to our house,@
21 that still meaning since the incident.

150
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Okay, so that's what you did say, is that right? Or, is
3 that what you meant to say?
4 Q. Um, I am not sure. You know, she barks sometimes, and I
5 am guessing she barked in the past, too.
6 A. Okay. So my question would be also, you said, to repeat,

7 AI mean Lucy barks and runs and jumps on cars sometimes.@ Can I ask
8 you how is she in the position ...
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. ... to run and jump on a car?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Is she doing that when she is off leash?
13 THE COURT: Okay, I am going to interrupt here. You are
14 getting off track again.
15 MS. ROGIER: Sorry, Your Honour.
16 THE COURT: This isn't about, Lucy, the dog, this is about
17 your dog, madam ...

18 MS. ROGIER: I'll strike the question.
19 THE COURT: So can you move on with your questions, it's not
20 helping me at all.
21 MS. ROGIER: I am just having trouble trying to find a

151
1 consistent understanding here. When the officers, for instance,
2 because it has to with your yardstick and how you see other dogs is
3 affected by how you work with your dogs. And one thing that caught
4 my attention was that when the officer came to your house, there was
5 something about the dogs jumping on him, so that's what I am ...
6 THE COURT: Okay, but I have asked you to move on from there,
7 it's not relevant.
8 MS. ROGIER: All right. And, again one thing I am trying to
9 clarify whether or not it was normal for you or not to come past my
10 house because you say different things at different times.
11 A. Yeah, well, I have been walking that road for 20 years,
12 so like I have walked by your house a number of times prior to you
13 living there, and after you living there. Um, so you know.
14 Q. And after. So ... it's funny I .... So did Dr. Minty talk
15 to you directly about this. You had a question mark about her name,
16 so I wondered if you were the one who spoke to her? Dr. Minty about
17 the dog's, the spots.

18 A. I brought Lucy to see Dr. Minty so I spoke directly with
19 Dr. Minty.
20 Q. Did she do anything special, any kind of special treatment,
21 like sort of injections, or stitches or anything like that?

152
1 A. I ... she didn't give her stitches. She gave her
2 antibiotics and as far as the rest of her examine and treatment, there
3 was a follow-up appointment we had to go to look at, but the, I have
4 the vet bill and the vet examine here with me in my bag, but I don't
5 think it's been submitted as evidence, though.
6 Q. It is in the disclosure file and I would like to submit

7 it at some point actually, Your Honour.
8 MS. SALSMAN: I believe ...
9 THE COURT: What was that?
10 MS. ROGIER: The vet bill.
11 THE COURT: The vet bill. It was not in the disclosure
12 file?
13 MS. SALSMAN: It is in the disclosure file.
14 THE COURT: Oh, it is.
15 MS. ROGIER: It's in the disclosure file, Your Honour. Yes,
16 I believe it's a modest amount of money.
17 A. For someone who doesn't need to pay for that.

18 Q. Well, I am just, modest in a general sense.
19 A. And I guess that's subjective to who ...
20 Q. It was under $100 or over $100?
21 A. For a dog attack that didn't need to happen, it's

153
1 expensive.
2 Q. I am just asking about the sum. So I think it says $134.00
3 here.
4 A. Okay, and there was also a follow-up appointment, too.
5 Q. Well, you don't have to distinguish it, it just says here
6 a vet bill because you had a vet bill. This was for $134.00.
7 A. I thought I faxed in the second one a week or two later,
8 but I don't know about that.
9 Q. Was Dr. Minty your vet before?
10 A. The Eastern Shore Veterinary Clinic was, yeah.
11 Q. Okay. So I am looking for the other spot and I still can't
12 find it, but at some later date, there would be potential to ....
13 So I am also trying to get back and pinpoint the perception of where
14 you were at the time. We talked about that and you talked about being
15 on the gravel.
16 A. I was.
17 Q. Is that in your testimony today?

18 A. When we were walking towards your house, I was.
19 Q. Right, then I wanted to go back there because in your
20 statement here, I notice that you say, ALike none of the incident,
21 none of the incidents was on the sidewalk or anything, It was all

154
1 on the pavement.@
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. Pavement isn't gravel, though?
4 A. Yeah, no, that's ... that's what I was walking on the gravel
5 prior to you getting into your driveway, and when the incident
6 happened, it was all on the pavement, the entire incident.

7 Q. So then, you thought you'd follow it up by saying, AAnd we
8 were kicking that dog.@
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. AAnd, I mean, I am amazed that the dog didn't turn on us,
11 because Tyson is a big guy and we were both wearing sneakers.@
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. So there were two of, but Brindi did pay any attention or
14 she didn't seem to feel that you were going to be the source of her
15 aggression, then, because you were confident to kick her without ...
16 A. She had her teeth sunk into my dog. So, okay, I was worried
17 that my dog was going to die.

18 Q. You remember, right.
19 A. So we were just kicking, it's not something we do normally,
20 but we were kicking the dog to get it off our dog.
21 Q. I mean, that's a bit of an exaggeration to say "teeth sunk@

155
1 because you refer to spots, later, so that's a different ... that's
2 a contrast.
3 A. Well, when, well that's a, just the language I used. But
4 when you submit the vet bill you will notice that she did also talk
5 about her injuries as puncture wound from a bite.
6 Q. From a bite, that she, that she's guessing at what happened

7 from the nature of the marks, but at the time for you, though, you
8 were saying "spots" and then you just described as Aher teeth@ meaning
9 more than two probably would be sunk in, but there were no marks from
10 ...
11 A. I really can't ...
12 THE COURT: The witness was just describing what she, how
13 she perceived that scene, the sight before her with respect to the
14 allegation.
15 MS. ROGIER: Okay. But you say in another part, you say
16 AObviously the dog bit through my dog's coat,@ so it's not a very
17 precise, it's a little misleading, I would say, based on the vet

18 reports, which said advise you to clean it with hydrogen peroxide,
19 and there was no more, other than a follow up to make sure she didn't
20 have an infection, the vet herself, didn't do any other special things
21 to your dog.
156
1 A. Again, I, you know, it would be in the vet examine report.
2 Q. So, then, um, okay, so then also there was a case where
3 I suppose I could understand it that you had a friend that works at
4 the bank in Porter's Lake, to quote, AYou told me her, this is all
5 hearsay, but told me that her co-worker lives down the Mines Road
6 ...@ So that's a third person.

7 A. Okay.
8 Q. A... has seen Francesca Rogier walking Brindi holding a
9 muzzle in her hand in the past, you know, over the summer, so I
10 encouraged her to call that in.@
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. And then the question follows: AWas she leashed at all?@
13 And you answer, AI didn't see any kind of leash. All I remember is
14 the dog,@ now this is going from page 20 to page 21, the questioning
15 is about a third party, actually and a fourth, someone told you that
16 they had talked to someone else ...
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Who says that they saw this?
19 A. Uh-hum.
20 Q. But, so that the officer is presumably asking you, AWas she
21 leashed when they saw her,@ not Awhen you saw her@?
157
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Because the question is following from that, and you say,
3 AI didn't see any kind of leash.@
4 A. I'd have to look at the, you know, I can't ...
5 Q. And you go back to the incident is what you are doing. AAll
6 I remember is the dog kind of coming out the window and just mauling
7 Lucy, so ...A
8 A. Well, then I would assume that he was then going back and
9 talking about our incident.
10 Q. Okay, it doesn't appear that way in the transcript, so
11 that's what confuses me that you answered as if you were the person
12 that you had heard about.
13 A. And I definitely wouldn't have done that.
14 Q. So, it's a little unclear here. So then you are talking
15 about this, again. Okay, I am just curious also about, also, would
16 you, are you aware that the definition of "attacks", could be under
17 ... can I ask this question, Your Honour, about the law, what it states
18 about the definition of "attack" in the law to the witness?
19 THE COURT: Well, I don't know, I mean you may at the close
20 of the day, put that into an argument, but not with this witness,
21 no. No, she can't make a comment on that.

158
1 MS. ROGIER: Okay. Well, let's just say, have you ever read
2 the definition and we will leave it at that, of "attack" in A-300?
3 A. I have never had to,
4 Q. Okay. Well I think ... You have never had to, the answer
5 is no, you have never read it, right? Before or since, I mean, since
6 this happened.
7 A. I don't believe so, I don't think so.
8 Q. Have you ever read anything in A-300, in the law?
9 A. I don't know. It's been a year and a half. Maybe I might
10 have, after the incident. I am not sure.
11 Q. But nothing that you can recall from that.
12 THE COURT: I have already said that this witness can't make
13 comment about the statute here.
14 MS. ROGIER: Well, if I were concerned that someone would be
15 evading responsibility then I would go and see what that
16 responsibility is as it is said in the law.
17 A. That's why we have people employed.

18 THE COURT: Okay, well, that's being argumentative with the
19 witness. That's not useful.
20 MS. ROGIER: I apologize. All right, I think that's pretty
21 much about it. I am just checking ... one more, Your Honour, and
159
1 then I will, you said earlier that you were both kicking, you didn't
2 have any indication, nothing that happened caused you ... that you
3 were very concerned for your dog, but not particularly for your own
4 safety.
5 A. That didn't enter my mind.
6 Q. In the moment.
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Fair enough, you can't predict all of the time what a dog
9 is going to do, right, so it's often a good idea to take some caution,
10 but in the moment when your dog is involved in something with another
11 dog, and you begin to, you know, take some action like kicking another
12 dog, not that's something that you instantly did without hesitation
13 and continued for a little while, is that a fair description.
14 A. It felt like a long time, but my husband has, you know ...
15 Q. I wasn't really referring to the time, I was referring to
16 actually, the action, the choice that he made to do that.
17 A. It was instinct, yeah.

18 Q. And then afterwards, did you feel any sense that she might
19 have bitten you, Brindi?
20 A. Brindi didn't bite me, no.
21 Q. Afterwards, did you think maybe I made a mistake by kicking

160
1 her.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. Do you recall telling an RCMP officer that that
4 night that our personal safety was at risk?
5 A. Yes, yeah. Absolutely.
6 Q. And yet you just said that you weren't concerned about
7 kicking her, even afterwards.
8 A. Oh no, not in the moment, I am not regretful of what I did,
9 I had to do that to get my dog free.
10 Q. Katie, I didn't mean that. I meant just that you weren't
11 feeling fear retroactively or maybe saying to myself, you know, why
12 did I do that, I could have been bitten? That didn't cross your mind?
13 A. Oh, absolutely it did. Yeah. We could have been bitten,
14 we could have been hit by cars.
15 Q. But you weren't.
16 A. We weren't that night, no. We were lucky.
17 Q. Is there a lot of traffic on East Chezzetcook Road

18 generally?
19 A. Yes, and they drive fast, yeah.
20 MS. ROGIER: That's an interesting view. Okay. Well,
21 fine, I think that that's end of my questioning. Thank you very much.
161
CATHERINE SIMMS, Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 MS. SALSMAN: Just briefly, Your Honour.
3 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 MS. SALSMAN: They were referring to the veterinary receipts.
6 I only have one copy, unfortunately. Do you recognize this document?

7 A. Yeah. This is the receipt from the morning after the
8 attack.
9 Q. And how much is the receipt for?
10 A. It came to $134.10 and I bought Lucy a toy on that, too,
11 for $12.00, so.
12 THE COURT: We are also going to, so it should maybe be
13 Exhibit 4 (sic) because I have just thinking the transcript that
14 Ms. Rogier has been referring to, and we are going to make that into
15 an exhibit as well.
16 THE CLERK: (Inaudible due to distance from mic
17
18 EXHIBIT 3 - VET BILL, MARKED AND ENTERED
19
20 THE COURT: Is that all for the witness then?
21 MS. SALSMAN: That's mine.

162
CATHERINE SIMMS, Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 THE COURT: Thanks very much, Ms. Simms, for remaining.
2 A. Thank you.
6 DISCUSSION
7
8 MS. SALSMAN: Should we copy that document now, Your Honour.
9 THE COURT: Yes, I think we should. We should just take a
10 moment.
11 MS. ROGIER: I was writing on mine.
12 MS. SALSMAN: It's just mine is in a binder, so it's not very
13 easy to copy.
14 MS ROGIER: Were you not planning on entering it?
15 MS. SALSMAN: No.
16 THE COURT: Could we, is yours marked up, could we?
17 MS. SALSMAN: It's not marked up, it's fine ...

18 THE COURT: Would you have another one at the office
19 perhaps, or?
20 MS. SALSMAN: I actually don't. This is our original.
21 THE COURT: Okay, well perhaps we can get someone, is

163
DISCUSSION
1 someone else available to Xerox it?
2 MS. SALSMAN: I may have a disk.
3 MS. ROGIER: Actually, I might have a disk that it's on.
4 THE COURT: Oh, no that's okay. I don't want to take
5 your... I am ... we'll just get a copy of it as well.
6 MS ROGIER: I would like to enter all of them, so I am willing

7 to give you a disk with all of it. All of the recordings that were
8 made into transcripts.
9 THE COURT: We have two transcripts already. I don't know
10 what other transcripts there were.
11 MS. ROGIER: Do you have a transcript of the dispatch calls?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MS. ROGIER: All of them?
14 THE COURT: There is two of them.
15 MS. ROGIER: I would like this, could you perhaps prepare me
16 a list of things that were already submitted.
17 MS. SALSMAN: There were only two things. We introduced your

18 first and your second phone call with Michelle Steen. Those are the
19 only transcripts. ...(inaudible) photograph.
20 THE COURT: All right, just a moment now, is that, are there
21 any more witnesses for the Crown?

164
DISCUSSION
1 MS ROGIER: Yes, Your Honour. Valerie Rodger.
2 THE COURT: I think we just need the one copy. Is that
3 enough, yeah. Oh, just in case. Oh, okay, one for me and one for...
4 That's fine sure.
5 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour.
6 THE COURT: I am sorry, sir, you were standing? You were

7 just taking a stretch, okay.
8 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I would like to ask if I could enter
9 the audio statement of Michelle Steen with the RCMP officer that
10 interviewed her. It's also on one of the digital recordings.
11 THE COURT: All right, just a moment. Just come forward
12 please, madam. We'll just get you sworn. Yeah, we'll just get you
13 sworn.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
165
1 VALERIE RODGER, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: State your name for the record, and spell your
4 last name.
5 A. Valerie Rodger. R-O-D-G-E-R.
6 THE COURT: Thank you so much, ma'am. All right, just

7 before we start Ms. Rogier is still on her feet and is wanting to
8 submit a transcript from, I don't know what it is, but I don't know
9 if there is any problem with that, as far as the Crown is concerned.
10 MS. SALSMAN: Well, it's the transcribed interview with Ms.
11 Steen, Your Honour. It's not something that's been touched on in
12 the evidence previously.
13 MS. ROGIER: It's extremely critical to the ...
14 THE COURT: Okay, well, let's go back. Remember we were
15 going to ... we were going to discuss that, about bringing Ms. Steen
16 back.
17 MS. ROGIER: Oh, yes, I am sorry. I forgot.

18 THE COURT: Perhaps we could even verify that, so we don't
19 get lost at the end of the day, that, we could ask the Crown if you
20 are going to have to subpoena Ms. Steen back for March 16th at 9:30,
21 and that will give, all right, so at that point, Ms. Rogier, you can
166
VALERIE RODGER, Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 bring forward that transcript and we can, and you can go from there
2 on that date. All right, so Officer Rodgers (sic).
6 MS. SALSMAN: What's your occupation?

7 A. Animal Services Officer.
9 A. I have been employed with HRM Animal Services for almost
10 three years now.
11 Q. And were you so employed in September of 2010?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. And did you investigate a complaint that's relevant to the
14 proceedings here today?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Now how did you first begin investigating that complaint?
17 A. When the case was handed to me, um, there was already
18 evidence had already been turned into Animal Services. I already
19 had the service requests from the reports of the attack. The written
20 statements of Catherine Simms, and her husband and photographs of
21 injuries to the dog. Um, and I had, was given the recordings from
167
1 the Call Centre of the phone calls that had been made. After that,
2 it took me a while to get in touch with Ms. Rogier, but I did put
3 that together and did eventually get a statement from her.
4 Q. Okay, and what did you do next after taking the statement?
5 A. Well, after taking the statement, I did laid the charges
6 against her.
7 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me, would you mind speaking up a little
8 bit. There is blower right ...
9 THE COURT: That's right. I should ask you that as well.
10 Sorry, if you could just keep your voice elevated so we could all
11 hear you.
12 A. Sorry, all right.
13 THE COURT: So you were just saying after taking the
14 statement from Ms. Rogier ...
15 A. It was, yeah, I did file charges against here. I did seize
16 Brindi after having the evidence of, as I said, listened to the
17 recordings, I had read the statements of the Simms, I had the

18 photographs of the injuries to the dog.
19 MS. SALSMAN: And when you ... when you seized Brindi what did
20 you seize Brindi pursuant to, what if anything?
21 A. The authority to seize?

168
1 Q. Yeah, under what authority did you seize Brindi?
2 A. The HRM Charter, the Municipal Charter.
3 Q. Okay, and what procedure did you follow for seizing Brindi.
4 A. I put together an Information for Warrant and went to a
5 Justice of the Peace to get the warrant approved and signed.
6 Q. And was that warrant approved?

7 A. Yes, it was.
8 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, I am going to show you a document, I would
9 like to have entered as, what are we on, Exhibit 4.
10
11 EXHIBIT 4 B WARRANT TO SEIZE DOG, MARKED AND ENTERED
12
13 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, do you recognize this document?
14 A. Yeah, that was the warrant that I got that I used to seize
15 Brindi with.
16 Q. Okay, thanks. So, when did you go to seize Brindi?
17 A. If I can refer to my notes taken at the time?

18 THE COURT: Yes, those notes are in disclosure, I presume?
19 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, they are.
20 THE COURT: All right, certainly. Go ahead, officer.
21 A. I did attend Ms. Rodger's residence to attempt to execute

169
1 the warrant on September 21st and September 26th. It was on, just to
2 confirm, the 27th of September that I was actually able to execute
3 the warrant and take Brindi into custody.
4 MS. SALSMAN: Okay. And are you aware of any orders that are
5 currently in place with regards to that dog?
6 A. Previous to this case there was a muzzle order from HRM

7 Animal Services for her to muzzle the dog and there is also after
8 the last court case a court-imposed order which included an
9 obligation to muzzle the dog.
10 Q. Okay, I am going to show you another document.
11 THE CLERK: Exhibit 5.
12
13 EXHIBIT 5 B HRM ANIMIAL SERVICES MUZZLE ORDER, MARKED AND ENTERED
14
15 MS. SALSMAN: Do you recognize this document?
16 A. Yes, this would be the muzzle order imposed by HRM Animal
17 Services.
18 Q. And what are the conditions of that muzzle order?
19 A. Ah, right off the document, AThe dog is required to be
20 muzzled at all times when outside. To clarify a muzzle is defined
21 as a humane covering device of sufficient strength placed over a dog's

170
1 mouth to prevent it from biting.@
2 Q. Okay. And then the later court order, do you remember the
3 specifics of what that court order required?
4 A. I can't quote you exactly, but it did require the dog to
5 be contained in an escape proof enclosure or sufficient enclosure,
6 and when it was outside of that enclosure, to be leashed and muzzled

7 at all times.
8 Q. Okay, thank you. And I am going to show you this document,
9 as well, do you ... Exhibit 6.
10
11 EXHIBIT 6 B DECISION ON SENTENCING ON PREVIOUS TRIAL, MARKED AND
12 ENTERED
13
14 A. Um, yeah, I don't know what the term for it is, but it's
15 the sentencing provisions from the last file.
16 Q. Okay, and that ...
17 A. Including the stipulations under which Brindi was to be

18 released.
19 Q. And when you seized Brindi, did you take any records on
20 that day?
21 A. My notes and a photograph ... I photograph every dog that's

171
1 impounded, so I did take a photograph of her in the pound.
2 Q. Okay, and I will show you a photograph here.
3 THE CLERK: Exhibit 7.
5 EXHIBIT 7 B PHOTOGRAPH OF BRINDI INSIDE POUND, MARKED AND ENTERED
6
7 MS. SALSMAN: Do you recognize this photograph?
8 A. Yeah, this is the photograph I took of her inside the pound
9 facility.
10 Q. And when was it taken?
11 A. On September 27th, the day that I took her into custody.
12 Q. And where is Brindi now?
13 A. Brindi is in a long-term holding facility, Wyndenfog
14 Kennels.
15 Q. And is she ... so, is she in custody of ...
16 A. She is currently in the custody of HRM, yes, in a long-
17 term facility.
18 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, those are my questions, thank you
19 THE COURT: Thank you very much. All right. Any questions
20 of this witness?
21
172
VALERIE RODGER, Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
3 MS. ROGIER: Yes, I have many questions, thank you. Okay,
4 If I could just, so we have introduced the warrant, and I wanted ...
5 I am glad that they showed you the picture of Brindi, that you sent
6 to me also after you seized her, which didn't happen the last time.
7 So I was interested that that came then, and caused me a great deal
8 of distress, I have to say. But I wonder if you could out Brindi
9 in this photo?
10 A. I didn't take these photos.
11 Q. No, you didn't. I'm just wondering if you could recognize
12 her there. That ... do you recognize down there where that is, at
13 the Metro SPCA shelter, where Brindi was kept for two ... well,
14 about ...
15 A. Okay, I wasn't involved in that case.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. I wasn't with HRM Animal Services when that happened.

18 Q. So that, but that's what, and is she in this picture?
19 A. The corner of her face, that could be her.
20 Q. You are not that familiar with how she looks then? Do you
21 see her ... Have you seen her since you seized her?
173
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. You have?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. You would think that a dog that you seized, you know, you
5 would remember. Is she in this photo? And I would like to enter
6 these, if I could Your Honour, these pictures that I showed the

7 witness.
8 THE COURT: Would you kindly show them to Ms. Salsman?
9 MS. ROGIER: I think they have, I submitted them in the trial.
10 MS. SALSMAN: Well, they are not ...
11 MS. ROGIER: I can (send them to you?)
12 MS. SALSMAN: If they are just simply being marked for
13 identification, at this point, I assume that they are going to be
14 properly ...
15 MS. ROGIER: Okay, Exhibit A, if I may.
16 THE COURT: Okay, wait, that would be Defence Exhibit 1?
17 THE CLERK: I think can we just ... (inaudible - away from

18 mic)
19 THE COURT: Keep going then ... Okay, so that's fine.
20 Sure, put them together as Defence Exhibit 1. ... (inaudible) Okay.
21
174
1 EXHIBIT 8 B PHOTOS OF BRINDI AT SPCA, MARKED AND ENTERED
2 MS. ROGIER: I have ... and a third that I would like to show
3 you, just if you could identify her.
4 A. Yeah, that looks like Brindi.
5 Q. Do you recognize any of the people there?
6 A. Do you want me to take a closer look?

7 Q. Yes, just curious.
8 A. Off the top of my head, no, I mean, they have got ... again,
9 they've got SPCA shirts on them. I presume they are from when she
10 was at the SPCA, that was ...
11 Q. And what's Brindi actually doing there?
12 A. She is sitting.
13 Q. Is she doing anything else? You don't recognize ... she
14 (happens to?) be eating a cake. She is eating something I would ...
15 (inaudible)
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. And this is a young baby. Do you recognize that as a young

18 baby?
19 A. Sure, it's a child, yeah.
20 Q. Would it surprise you to know that these are SPCA staff
21 at the Metro Shelter who took care of Brindi for almost two years?
175
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. So that would be exhibit 2.
3 THE CLERK: ... (inaudible due to distance from mic)
4 MS. ROGIER: You're going to tab them, okay. Okay, let the
5 record show that I am introducing a picture of the informant, I am
6 sorry not the informant, but the dog, Brindi, with about a dozen or
7 so volunteer staff and two paid staff at the SPCA Metro Shelter. All
8 of them are smiling.
9 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine. They just got introduced
10 through the witness.
11 MS. SALSMAN: Just to confirm Your Honour, that it's not
12 actually been on the record yet confirmed that those are who those
13 people are in the ...
14 THE COURT: No, that's right, that's true. It's only been
15 as confirmed by the witness.
16 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, just if I may state for the record.
17 And I don't think it would be challenged, is that I obtained that

18 photo directly from the Shelter Director on the day that I celebrated
19 as Brindi's birthday. They were celebrating Brindi's birthday
20 there. Okay, so Valerie Rodger, do you recognize this document as
21 something that you wrote?

176
1 A. Yeah, that looks like the information that I wrote out to
2 get the Warrant to Seize, absolutely.
3 MS. ROGIER: A three-page document that I would also like to
4 enter as evidence after I, if I may, I don't know if I have two copies,
5 I don't know if the Crown does.
6 THE COURT: I don't know. I don't know what that ...

7 MS. ROGIER: ... (inaudible) I might have one, but I don't
8 see it right now. This is what you submitted to get the Warrant
9 to Seize Brindi?
10 THE COURT: Okay, just a sec. Let's just back up, let's
11 just ... sorry. I just ...
13 MS. SALSMAN: I do have copies of the information, Your
14 Honour, the only thing is I have copies that were intended to be
15 used as exhibits for the evidence on the Charter application, but
16 if, I presume that they are going ... that there wouldn't be a
17 difficulty with having the same exhibit being used.

18 THE COURT: No, no, thanks.
19 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, would you like the schedules to be
20 attached, as well.
21 MS. ROGIER: No, well, the schedules?

177
1 MS. SALSMAN: Yeah, the attachment.
2 MS. ROGIER: Was that the (Ross?)
3 MS. SALSMAN: No, it's all the evidence that she attached, for
4 Schedule AC@.
5 MS. ROGIER: Not for my sake at this time. I'm content with
6 the Information.
7 THE COURT: I think they are referred to within the body of
8 the document.
9 MS. SALSMAN: I think so, Your Honour.
10 THE COURT: They should be attached.
11 MS. ROGIER: Where did I just put it now ...
12 THE SALSMAN: ... (inaudible)
13 MS. ROGIER: What I am interested in is what was actually
14 given to the Justice of the Peace as Information for the Justice of
15 the Peace to decide whether to sign, you know, a warrant for the dog
16 to be seized knowing that she might then be, well, actually, I don't
17 know actually, the JP when she signs this, has any indication of how
18 long you intended to keep Brindi? Did you give her any indication
19 of that?
20 A. Ah.
21 Q. Or for what purpose you intended to seize her?

178
1 A. No, but I think it would be understood that it's being
2 seized pending, the dog is going to be held until a court deems
3 otherwise.
4 Q. Do you usually do that when you get a report of an attack,
5 a dog that attacked, do you always go and seize and get a JP to give
6 you a warrant to seize, pending trial?

7 A. Every time a dog attacks, no.
8 Q. How often have you done it personally and how long have
9 you worked in this capacity?
10 A. As an Animal Enforcement Officer, almost five years, and
11 very fortunately I have never had a reason to have to seize a dog
12 before.
13 Q. The question was: how often or how many times, the truth
14 is that you actually ...
15 A. This is the only time.
16 Q. ... had reason to under A-300, is it not. A-300 deems AAny
17 dog that attacks is a dangerous dog,@ in Section 2 of A-300, which

18 is the law that you operate with every day.
19 A. Yes, but it wasn't under A-300 that I seized Brindi.
20 Q. True. But the HRM Charter does not define dangerous dog
21 as far as I know. The dog sections of the HRM Charter are 193 and
179
1 197. They offer, they provide authorization to license, they
2 provide authorization to seize.
3 THE COURT: Okay, you have to put question the witness.
4 MS. ROGIER: Okay. So you don't ... in other words the
5 answer is no.
6 THE COURT: I think what, just a minute, listen to me.

7 MS. ROGIER: Oh, sorry.
8 THE COURT: You are getting in argument, which is fair
9 enough, but not at this point. All right, it's not when you have
10 ... you don't put your argument to the witness.
11 MS. ROGIER: Well, Your Honour, if the argument, well the
12 explanation was that she would seize Brindi because there was a report
13 that she attacked.
14 THE COURT: Well, it's fair enough to ask why she seized
15 Brindi.
16 MS. ROGIER: She enforces the law herself. You enforce the
17 law directly, is that right?

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So that you, you know, that someone who enforces it would
20 know the definitions under the entire scope of the law that applies
21 to dogs?
180
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Okay, because these are the things that you are doing. You
3 are there to enforce the law that was set down by a legislative body,
4 and you are the enforcer.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Or you are the informant, and you are going to the judiciary
7 to say, okay. So when you do that, do you have an obligation to tell
8 the truth?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What does that come from, that obligation. Is that in the
11 Charter, I mean the HRM Charter?
12 A. If I swear an information before a justice I have an
13 obligation to tell the truth. That is part and parcel of it.
14 Q. Okay. So have you listened to all the recordings, or had
15 you, at the time you wrote this information, had you listened to the
16 recordings of the dispatch?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. ROGIER: So, in those recordings, let's say ... which
19 I don't know if the Court has heard yet, Your Honour.
20 THE COURT: I have.
21 MS. ROGIER: Okay, so did you understand, or was it your

181
1 interpretation that ... that the dispatcher and I had spoken for the
2 first time or maybe very scantily prior to that day?
3 A. I have no idea how often you spoke to the dispatcher before
4 then.
5 Q. Well, you heard the conversation. Generally you can tell
6 on a lengthy, somewhat lengthy conversation and the topics and so

7 on, and how people speak, whether or not they have ...
8 A. You were obviously known, I would say, my take on it was
9 you were obviously known to each other, yes.
10 Q. Yes, and okay, because you are an investigative officer,
11 right?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. So did you include in your report to the JP that it appeared
14 as though we had been acquainted, which would be of significance,
15 I would think, because of some of the things that are coming up in
16 this document.
17 A. Okay, I am not sure off the top of my head, everything that

18 was included. If I could have a copy of the ...
19 Q. Okay, did you include ...
20 THE COURT: Okay, just a sec. Just let the witness refresh
21 her memory from her ... do we have that as Exhibit 9?

182
1 THE CLERK: ... (inaudible)
2 THE COURT: Oh, sure, okay, thank you.
4 EXHIBIT 9 B INFORMATION FOR WARRANT TO ENTER AND SEIZE, MARKED AND
5 ENTERED
6
7 ... (inaudible)
8 A. I am going to look at what was said about the recordings
9 in, yeah, no, this was a very brief overview of what I thought was
10 most important out of what I had heard from the recordings. I wasn't
11 listening to the recordings to determine how well you knew the call
12 taker, I was listening for the elements of the offence.
13 MS. ROGIER: But, Your Honour, can I just ask, is it all right
14 if I sit while I ask questions?
15 THE COURT: If you are not up to it, you can sit, certainly,
16 for a medical reason, physical reason, certainly.
17 MS. ROGIER: Thank you. Um, okay I would like to go through

18 this just a little bit because it's a very important duty to be
19 truthful to the Justice of the Peace who is relying on that in their
20 determination about whether to actually authorize the action to seize
21 someone's property so, I am just asking is it possible that you might

183
1 have omitted a few tips or a few things about that that might be
2 relevant to the JP in determining what to do?
3 A. I put forward all the information that I had that I thought
4 would be pertinent. If you are suggesting that I was untruthful
5 about something, I'd like to know what specifically.
6 Q. Actually, if you omit something that might be relevant,

7 for instance, was it your impression that, well, I don't know. I
8 wasn't here this morning, so I don't know if you listened to the calls
9 that the dispatcher was aware of the tape being made and that so she
10 spoke in a way, you know, that someone would who was convinced wasn't
11 being made.
12 THE COURT: I don't know that this witness ...
13 A. I can't speak to what ...
14 THE COURT: Yes. The witness can't speak to that.
15 MS. ROGIER: Okay, then. It actually, Your Honour, I would
16 argue that it is very clear ... it's very convincing in the tape
17 because I ask the person, the dispatcher twice, and this is someone
18 as you say, we were acquainted.
19 THE COURT: No, but that's once again, you are here with this
20 witness to cross-examine this witness on her direct testimony.
21 MS. ROGIER: Well, you know, it was omitted and that's one
184
1 thing that I wonder whether or not would be of relevance because if
2 you have a recording of a conversation that two people make and are
3 not aware that they are making this recording, and then you enter
4 it into an information sheet for a warrant, it could be considered
5 illegally obtained evidence.
6 THE COURT: What are you putting to the witness?

7 MS. ROGIER: I am ...
8 THE COURT: Just a minute, listen to me. If you are putting
9 to the witness that there was something there that was omitted in
10 her affidavit then ... and that you consider there was some reason
11 behind that, put that ...
12 MS. ROGIER: Yes, Your Honour.
13 THE COURT: ... put that what you believe she omitted to the
14 witness ...
16 THE COURT: ... and let her answer.
17 MS. ROGIER: Very good, thank you, I am sorry. I am getting

18 ahead of myself. Okay, so you did state that the call taker suggested
19 that I make a report that the other dog, let's see I am going to read
20 it here, AThe call taker advised Ms. Rogier to put in a report that
21 Brindi was attacked by the other dog and to state that Brindi was
185
1 wearing a muzzle at the time. The call taker also advised Ms. Rogier
2 to take Brindi and hide her and Ms. Rogier stated that she was doing
3 so.@
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. "All calls to the corporate call centre are recorded and
6 the corporate call centre provided Animal Services with a copy of

7 the recorded phone call." Did you provide the JP with a copy of the
8 phone call?
9 A. Sorry, I just, I don't see where the CDs were included.
10 Q. So you are not sure?
11 A. ... (inaudible - reading to self) No, the Justice of the
12 Peace by the looks of this was not provided with the recordings of
13 the phone calls.
14 Q. Okay, so he didn't have the actual, he was relying on your
15 description, correct?
16 A. Well, for the phone calls, yes.
17 THE COURT: She can't answer that. It depends on who was

18 that person, and that person is not here.
19 MS. ROGIER: I am sorry. I am trying to locate something
20 here. I am trying to decide actually, there are several questions
21 which would get into to touch on things as the background of the

186
1 Charter claim. Um, okay, so in any case, you ... did you have the
2 impression from the recording that neither of us ... (inaudible)
3 believed that we were being recorded? Yes or no? Were you aware
4 that, that I had asked her twice and she said no it wasn't being
5 recorded?
6 A. You were ... Yes, I did hear that.

7 Q. So you knew that when you wrote to the ...
8 A. You had ... you had asked if it was being recorded.
9 Q. Okay, so this was not in your information, though. You
10 didn't include this in the information as far as I can tell. Is that
11 correct?
12 A. No, my information was to set out the reasons why I felt
13 that Brindi needed to be seized in the interests of public safety.
14 Q. So the answer is no, you didn't tell that to the JP.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. So that the fact that we said including the call
17 taker, no ... nothing being done, and so on, that's not known to the
18 JP at that time. That was not a concern of yours at the time. So
19 these recordings ...
20 A. No, what was ... what was said, what the JP had from this
21 was what I gave in his package.

187
1 Q. Okay, so, just knowing this, I am just making sure that
2 we have it straight. So there is a lot of extensive discussion here
3 about these calls. Um, not everything here, I mean you had to make
4 a judgment call, there was some things that may or may not be of
5 significance, but you chose the ones that were here.
6 A. I chose to outline my reasons for believing that Brindi

7 was a danger to the public, yes.
8 Q. Now, okay, let's return to the law a little bit here. Um,
9 a dog that has a muzzle. There are six ways that Section 2 defines
10 Adangerous@ in A-300. One of them is Aa dog that attacks.@ I am just
11 going to name two. One of them is a dog that's under a muzzle order.
12 So Brindi, you stated before, was under a muzzle order?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. So then you ... okay, so presumably she was under a muzzle
15 order for a long time every day, but on the ... and this is a, but
16 on the warrant it states that, AWhere it appears on the oath of Valerie
17 Rodger, a peace officer in the Halifax Regional Municipality, that

18 there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing, that
19 Francesca Rogier owns and harbours a dangerous dog as follows.@ You
20 actually knew, for a fact, that under the law that I had a dog that
21 was dangerous, right, because she had a muzzle order?

188
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And she had also been convicted of attacking?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And, so it goes on, ABrown and black female Labrador
5 retriever/Rottweiler,@ which really isn't her thing, but A...a mixed
6 breed dog named Brindi, is to be found in the following place ...@

7 and then it gives the address, AThis is therefore to authorize the
8 said place between,@ so it gives you the terms, A... to search for
9 and seize the said dog and to deliver the said dog forthwith to the
10 custody of the pound keeper for the Halifax Regional Municipality.
11 And further, should you be unable to seize the said dog in safety,
12 to authorize you to destroy the said dog to the pound keeper,@ is the
13 rest of this.
14 So as far as you are concerned, this is your portion of
15 this thing, of the warrant. This warrant is doing something that
16 I find a little redundant because it's already well-known in your
17 records, in the public, that she has a muzzle order and that she is
18 a dog that had a conviction of attacking. What in this warrant states
19 the reason, the actual reason, because presumable, theoretically,
20 you could have gotten this and come to my house on any day, any time,
21 because she was always a dangerous dog. She can't be more than
189
1 dangerous. She can't be dangerous twice. Okay. This is the
2 warrant that authorizes you to seize, so presumably when you seize
3 property it's for a reason. What's the reason?
4 A. Because she had attacked, yet again, in spite of court
5 orders.
6 Q. Yeah, where is it on here? A person who has property, I

7 am going to get this warrant. I am trying to find out why you seized
8 my dog.
9 MS SALSMAN: Your Honour, she is essentially asking ...
10 MS. ROGIER: So I wondering, you know ...
11 MS. SALSMAN: She's essentially asking the witness to explain
12 the content of a warrant that she wasn't the author of, she simply
13 executed the warrant as it was written. I don't think it's proper
14 to ask her to explain on what reasons the Justice of the Peace ...
16 MS. SALSMAN: ... may or may not have issued that warrant.
17 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, this warrant attaches a very, very

18 powerful action to the person executing it by going into someone's
19 private home and taking their property, which is a very, you know,
20 such an important thing in the law in Canada that it's enshrined in
21 the Charter and it is limited and it is prescribed. And there are

190
1 certain ways that it's okay to do it, and there are certain ways that
2 it's not okay to do it. So I think, in fact, that this is very, very
3 relevant, that it doesn't say a thing ...
4 THE COURT: Okay, you but can bring that, you are looking
5 at the witness, it's not the witness ...
6 MS. ROGIER: Okay.

7 THE COURT: You are talking to the court.
8 MS. ROGIER: Now ...
9 THE COURT: Just a minute.
10 MS. ROGIER: And what that once again comes down to can be
11 with respect to, if you want to put that forward as a ... as a Charter
12 argument at the end of the day, or in that nature, that's what we
13 can certainly do. I will hear you in all that.
14 MS. ROGIER: Okay.
15 THE COURT: But at this point is to ... you have got your
16 witness on the stand, to cross-examine the witness on her testimony.
17 MS. ROGIER: So ...

18 THE COURT: That warrant, as I understand it, that you have
19 in your hand, I haven't gotten it from you, authorizes this person
20 to go and do certain things under that warrant.
21 MS. ROGIER: That's correct.

191
1 THE COURT: That's all it says.
2 MS. ROGIER: On the application of this person who decided
3 ... who made a judgment call to decide to get a warrant.
4 THE COURT: Yeah, if you wanted to attack the warrant, I
5 think it would have to be done in a different way than here at trial.
6 MS. ROGIER: Okay. So, Your Honour, I feel like my hands are
7 tied because this is the person, at the heart of things, that are
8 relevant to the warrant and the validity or invalidity that the
9 warrant information is also documented, is of extreme importance in
10 this matter, and she has been the one to choose what went into it.
11 It is three pages long. It is, by the way, do you normally issue
12 four-page information sheets when you are about to go get a warrant
13 to seize a dog?
14 A. This is the only time I have had to seize a dog.
15 Q. In five years?
16 A. So, it being the only time, I would say normally, that's
17 the one norm, that's the one time, that's what I did.
18 Q. Okay, that's good, because you just answered a question
19 I asked you before. I asked you how many times have you seized a
20 dog?
21 A. I told you there was no ... this is the only time it's been
192
1 necessary.
2 Q. She said twice, this is the only time I have seized a dog
3 in five years, okay, thank you.
4 A. It's the only time I had to, yes.
5 Q. Right, according to your decision to do it, your
6 interpretation of the situation.

7 A. Yes, I believed ...
8 Q. And the way that you applied the law.
9 A. ... that the public was in danger from continued attacks
10 from this dog.
11 Q. So the public was in danger based on a conversation between
12 myself and the dispatcher, most of which is what, I mean, when I look
13 at this, okay ...
14 A. Sorry, can I, there was more than just the conversation
15 between you and the dispatcher that ...
16 Q. There is?
17 A. That I based that decision on.

18 Q. That's right. There is much more, but a lot of it is this
19 conversation. Some of it is a description about who reported what,
20 and so on. When it comes to describing what exactly transpired
21 between the dogs, okay, or what exactly, you know, Brindi's history
193
1 was, I think, it would be fair to say, you confined yourself to saying
2 that she was under a muzzle order, that she attacked in the past...
3 A. Yes, I specified a number of times that she was found to
4 have attacked without provocation, including after she was under a
5 muzzle order.
6 Q. Correct, so do you say at all, I mean I notice this, that

7 a biting incident. Things are described in a pretty abstract way,
8 okay. So a biting incident, a muzzle order. So running at large
9 without wearing a muzzle and attacked a dog. That's a two line
10 sentence, okay, and there was four pages of this, and then you know
11 you went into the detail about the charges that I was found ... that
12 I was found guilty of, not what my dog did exactly,
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Because she can't be penalized under the law, although a
15 judge can order to put her down, right. But it's not, I mean I am
16 wondering what the relevance is of the rest of it, is actually what
17 I'm saying. I ... is it true that, you know, you could have seized
18 the dogs simply by telling the JP she attacked.
19 A. That's a hypothetical that I can't answer, whether or not
20 that Justice would have given me a warrant on those grounds.
21 Q. Okay, so you added all this other material here because

194
1 you weren't sure that it was enough?
2 A. No, I added all the material that I thought was relevant
3 to explain my reasons for seizing Brindi.
4 Q. Okay, so a reason to seize a dog then, and you are implying
5 is that there is a conversation as well, as all the other descriptions
6 that you described the attack in detail, that according to what the
7 Simms told you, yes? Two or three paragraphs. You describe as well,
8 though, many other phone calls, that had nothing to do with the
9 incident. That was the ...
10 A. That gave me information about the incident.
11 Q. Okay, so. Did they? Some of them seemed to talk about
12 information about what I and the call taker were talking about, about
13 making reports, about what to do, about other things that were
14 involving Animal Services and so on. But I see in terms of what is
15 actually stated, because the, you know, about Brindi to cause this
16 JP to give you this amazing, you know, powerful tool to come to my
17 house and take her and have an RCMP Officer bust into one of my doors
18 with something that doesn't say anything about attack. There is
19 about, you know, two, three lines here, about the actual, you know,
20 what she did in the past. So, we don't know, the JP doesn't know,
21 did she kill a dog? Did she slit its throat? Did she cause any kind
195
1 of a severe injury, or was it a minor injury? That's not in the
2 material because, why?
3 Okay, so the detail, I am curious about, Officer Rodger, Shelly
4 Rodger, Valerie Rodger, I am sorry, is that what is sufficient to
5 get this warrant, (a) okay, and (b) why go to the trouble and taking
6 the responsibility of conveying long conversations in writing so that

7 you actually might inadvertently omit something. Many of these
8 things, you know, you could have done this without, is this the only
9 time you have done a warrant?
10 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I think that ...
11 MS. ROGIER: I am just curious because I ... (inaudible)
12 THE COURT: Just a second, let me hear the objection.
13 MS. SALSMAN: I think that the witness has already answered
14 that question by explaining that she entered all that information
15 because she was providing the Justice of the Peace with all the
16 details that lead her to believe that this was a dangerous dog. She
17 is simply asking the same question over and over again.

19 THE COURT: See I appreciate that you are challenging the
20 validity of the warrant, and you know, this is the witness that went
21 to the Justice of the Peace to obtain that warrant, and I appreciate

196
1 based on her information that puts before the Justice to get the
2 warrant. I am certainly not, as I say, I keep going back and saying,
3 we are certainly going to allow you to raise all those issues in
4 argument ...
5 MS. ROGIER: Okay.
6 THE COURT: All, right, including that issue, but you can't
7 just put the arguments to the witness, do you understand?
8 MS. ROGIER: Can I ask for an explanation though, under the
9 law, why a person would go to this detail, because most of the things
10 were not really relevant at all to what she states is her goal in
11 writing it, which is to convey to the JP that there was an attack,
12 and that this is grounds for seizing a dog. That's my ... my only,
13 I mean she spent a good amount of time, she is on the payroll. She's
14 ... you know, taxpayers want to know how time is spent. She's got
15 a law to follow. And that's her job. It's her job, so.
16 THE COURT: I don't know that I am totally following you.
17 It might be just because it is getting very late in the day, but ...
18 MS. ROGIER: Yes.
19 THE COURT: I want to make sure I understand your question.
20 MS. ROGIER: Well, the question goes to, what in your mind,
21 dictates whether you seize the dog that attacks and a dog that
197
1 attacks. In five years that you didn't seize, many dogs attack that
2 you knew about.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And they attacked. So they were sufficient under the law
5 to be seized, under two laws actually, right, the Charter, the HRM
6 Charter, and under A-300, they both authorize it.

7 A. The reason why I have never seized a dog previous to this
8 is I have never come across a case where a dog attacked, had a muzzle
9 order put on, has been allowed to attack yet again, gets another order
10 put on, and has been allowed to attack yet again. Usually, after
11 a muzzle order has been put on a dog, we never hear about it again
12 because the owner, therefore, takes responsibility to prevent the
13 dog from attacking again.
14 Q. Okay, okay. My first question response to that is, I would
15 imply from that that you're saying your job is to enforce the law
16 when there is a number of incidents and not to distinguish necessarily
17 the severity of it.

18 A. I enforce the law. I'll enforce the law regardless of the
19 incident.
20 Q. Regardless of the incident. So if there were ...
21 A. However many incidents. If there is only one attack, the

198
1 law is enforced. If there is three attacks, the law is enforced.
2 In terms of why I deemed the dog to be a danger to the public to needing
3 to be seized is not on the basis of one attack, but on a continued
4 history of aggression towards other dogs ...
5 Q. Right.
6 A. ... and your unwillingness or inability to keep your dog

7 under control.
8 Q. So that's (a) first of all a subjective decision on your
9 part because you don't really involve yourself in the details to be
10 able to make a statement like that accurately. I mean, are you
11 involving yourself in the history of my dog? Do you know what caused
12 the muzzle order to come about, for instance. That would be a
13 relevant piece of information.
14 A. I have reviewed the cases, yes.
15 Q. Okay. So are you aware that she was first going to get
16 a fine and that the muzzle order came about because the other dog
17 owner asked the Animal Control Officer, Tim Hamm, APlease don't fine
18 her. She can't afford it.@ And so he said, AWe will do a muzzle
19 order. Would you like us to do a muzzle order?@ There are email
20 correspondence.
21 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour ...

199
1 MS. ROGIER: I would enter ...
2 MS. SALSMAN: ... completely irrelevant.
3 MS. ROGIER: Now did you take the trouble ...
4 THE COURT: Just a minute, just a minute. Okay, thank you.
5 You were going to say something? You were going to make an objection.
6 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I just don't think it's relevant,

7 the reasons that were made prior before the warrant was proposed.
8 THE COURT: Yeah.
9 MS. ROGIER: It's, it's spoken of in this very important
10 piece of information. That a JP makes a great, he exercises his duty
11 based on. Your Honour, what I am trying to say is, you know, the
12 implication is being made that the number of incidents is a governing
13 factor. There is no mention of the severity of the incident. And
14 I can tell.
15 THE COURT: And the issue ...
16 MS. ROGIER: And there is no attempt to ...
17 THE COURT: ... and the objection before the Court is the
18 relevancy behind, basically once there is an order, a muzzle order,
19 then another muzzle order, is this Court, is it my duty through the
20 evidence to look back as to why the other muzzle orders were put in
21 place.
200
1 MS. ROGIER: I don't know about the answer to that question,
2 Your Honour, my interest is that the informant's, the informant has
3 discretion to choose whether to seize in one attack situation or
4 another, right.
5 THE COURT: But this witness has said that she did look into
6 the previous, if that's your concern, the previous incidents that

7 gave rise to these previous orders.
8 MS. ROGIER: Wouldn't it be a fair question then to test that
9 and say, how far did you, because under the law, the severity factor
10 doesn't seem to enter into it. Nor does the number, in fact. There
11 is no, there is no indicator in A-300 that says after Ax@ amount this
12 dog is more dangerous than another. Or, you know, there seems to
13 be absolutely full discretion. She has got complete unfettered
14 discretion, as they say, right, that she can choose. In other words,
15 if there is an incident.
16 THE COURT: Well, not necessarily. Because that's why we
17 are here today.

18 MS. ROGIER: Right, okay. So she does speak to the validity
19 of the warrant. Her testimony is very important, I would think.
20 Although, I can make the argument without her testimony. Um, but
21 it seems that it's worthwhile to given her the chance to explain and
201
1 if it's applicable.
2 THE COURT: Okay. What we'll do at this point, in any
3 event, is that I am shutting it down today. It's been a very long
4 day and it's very unfortunate that the witness is in the middle of
5 her cross-examination, but I don't know how long it might go on, but,
6 we have already gone past the 4:00 hour And so I am just going to
7 have to remind you, and I don't know whether you have been before
8 the court before, I'm sure that you have, that you understand that
9 when you are in the middle of testimony and we have to adjourn for
10 whatever reason, that you, of course, don't discuss your testimony
11 with anyone. I appreciate that you are shaking your head, yes.
12 So, I'll let you step down, madam, because we will just finish
13 up for the day. We have another date. I would just order the return
14 on March 16, at 9:30, officer, to continue your testimony at that
15 time and we'll see, and that would be the Crown's last witness?
16
17 WITNESS STEPS DOWN - (16:15 HRS)

18
19 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, it will be.
20 THE COURT: So it sounds like we should be able to finish
21 up, you may step down, thank you. Finish up at least hopefully
202
DISCUSSION
1 testimony and then you would be ... she is coming back on March 16,
2 yeah, and also then time for defence testimony and we will see where
3 we go, because I just wanted to let everybody understand, counsel
4 and Ms. Rogier understand, that after the 16th, it would be very
5 difficult if we'd run out of time, to get some more time, for a long
6 time.
7 So what I want to suggest at this stage, we will see how we do
8 the next day, just see how it goes, just so we are all alert to it,
9 that if it takes, say, past the morning, and we are still taking
10 evidence, that we would then, I would suggest get into a Charter issue
11 by way of brief, written argument, as opposed to oral argument, just
12 because of the time factor. And, so does that sound reasonable
13 enough? Yeah.
14 MS. ROGIER: Yes, and just to clarify, would it be
15 appropriate then to submit the Charter argument in writing prior to
16 the 16th in the interest of time?
17 THE COURT: If you want to do that, that's up to you. I

18 don't know if there is any other evidence that you want, for instance,
19 from this officer with respect to any Charter argument, or with
20 respect to the argument with respect to the validity of the warrant.
21 I don't know, that's, but it's up to you.

203
DISCUSSION
1 MS. ROGIER: I know, I apologize Your Honour, I am really not
2 a lawyer. I am an architect.
3 THE COURT: No, of course not, yeah.
4 MS. ROGIER: I am just trying to do my best here, you know.
5 THE COURT: It's certainly difficult when you are a
6 self-represented person, I understand.

7 MS. ROGIER: And it's a lot of stress to be doing this on
8 behalf of my own dog, who has been locked up now for a year and four
9 months, and I have, you know, a lot of issues that are essential to
10 her welfare. I have a question, one more question, if I might, Your
11 Honour.
12 THE COURT: Sure.
13 MS. ROGIER: Just to clarify, we have now entered the warrant
14 information sheet as evidence or not?
15 THE COURT: Pardon me?
16 MS. SALSMAN: Yes.
17 THE COURT: Sorry, we have, okay, my clerk is answering yes.

18 Oh, thank you, yes, we have.
19 MS. ROGIER: Very good, so you have the recordings, the
20 transcripts, and the warrant information and the warrant.
21
204
DISCUSSION
1 EXHIBIT 10 - AUDIO STATEMENT OF KATIE SIMMS, MARKED AND ENTERED
3 THE CLERK: I entered your exhibit on the statement.
4 MS. ROGIER: Okay, very good. Okay. And ...
5 THE COURT: And if there is anything else that you want to
6 exhibit, you can bring that forward the next day.

7 MS. ROGIER: Yes, okay.
8 THE COURT: I am not cutting you off here, but if there is
9 anything else you might want to exhibit.
10 MS. ROGIER: Okay, and just to clarify then, as I cross-
11 examine a witness, I am, I have the impression that, I guess that's
12 true, it makes sense. I apologize, it makes sense, that actually
13 in terms of the Charter argument the documents are what we look at,
14 not necessarily their first-hand testimony.
15 THE COURT: Well, that's up to you, I mean, we are bringing
16 back Miss Steen. You are going to be able to continue
17 cross-examination of the officer. You have cross-examined two

18 earlier witnesses, so I don't think.
19 MS. ROGIER: We have two other witnesses?
20 MS. SALSMAN: No, no. You have already done Mr. and Mrs.
21 Simms.
205
DISCUSSION
1 MS. ROGIER: There are four witnesses, right.
2 MS. SALSMAN: There was five witnesses.
3 THE COURT: Was there an extra. Am I forgetting someone?
4 MS. SALSMAN: There is five witnesses. So those are all the
5 Crown's witnesses.
6 THE COURT: Those are all, yeah.

7 MS. ROGIER: So, after Officer Rodger, it would be concluded.
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MS. ROGIER: So I can presumably then also call witnesses on
10 the 16th.
11 THE COURT: Yes, I don't know how long they are going to be,
12 but I just, as I say, that's after the 16th, we have to bring the
13 matter to conclusion, so we will have to move on.
14 MS. ROGIER: If I could just tell you. My feeling is that
15 I would like to have this all done by the 16th.
16 THE COURT: I am sure you would, we all would.
17 MS. ROGIER: So anything that I can do, so you know.

18 THE COURT: We all would, so that's appreciated.
19 MS. ROGIER: So to that end, that's why I am asking questions
20 really what can I submit in writing and what would be done on that
21 day so that it would be efficient so ...

206
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: No, that's fine. I am not wanting to put any,
2 stop you from, I appreciate you are self-represented. Fill your
3 boots. Put in whatever you wish to do. And, whether, the Court will
4 make a decision at the end of the day of what it considers or not,
5 all right.
6 MS. ROGIER: Yeah.

7 THE COURT: So don't be too concerned about that.
8 MS. ROGIER: And with that mind, can we get ... if the Crown
9 has not opposition, I would just like to while I am here, ...
10 (inaudible) this is the Book of Authorities that I have.
12 MS. ROGIER: I have submitted it to the Crown. And these are
13 some other documents, a petition, that I have also submitted to the
14 Crown. And I would like to submit it to the Court.
15 THE COURT: Have you ... did you just get those today?
16 MS. ROGIER: I just ...
17 MS. SALSMAN: Received them right now, yeah.

18 THE COURT: Do you have any difficulties with the Court
19 receiving them at this point or ...
20 MS. SALSMAN: Well, I think they're off extremely limited
21 relevance, Your Honour.

207
1 THE COURT: Well, that's fine. I can make a decision on
2 that.
4 (MATTER ADJOURNED TO MARCH 16, 2012, AT 09:30 HRS)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
208
1 MARCH 16, 2012
3 MATTER COMMENCED (TIME: 09:52 HRS)
5 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We left off on the last
6 date with respect to middle of the cross-examination of the Animal
7 Protection Officer, so perhaps we could recall her?

8 MS SALSMAN: Yes, Ms. Valerie Rodger. You Honour, we do
9 have, I believe, an order for exclusion of witnesses, if Your
10 Honour ...
11 THE COURT: That's correct. There was an order for
12 exclusion of witnesses. I don't know if anyone here in a witness
13 in this matter. If you are, I would kindly ask you to leave the
14 courtroom and we will call your name. No one is moving. I don't
15 think there is anyone here that was. Thank you.
16 Perhaps we'll have ... yeah, we'll get ... Officer, we are going
17 to have you re-sworn. I appreciate that you are in the middle of

18 your testimony, but just be on the safe side.
19
20
21
209
1 VALERIE RODGER, recalled, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: State your name for the record please and spell
4 your last name.
5 MS. RODGER: Valerie Rodger. Last name is spelled is
6 R-O-D-G-E-R.
7 THE COURT: Thanks very much. All right.
8 MS. ROGIER: Good morning. I am just getting my papers
9 together here. Your Honour, can I assume that you received the
10 motion to exclude?
11 THE COURT: I did receive that, I have, yes, thank you. I
12 have read it through.
13
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONT'D.)
15
16 MS. ROGIER: All right. Well, Valerie, you made the

17 decision to seize Brindi.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And last time I was asking you exactly what the reasons
20 were that lead you to do that and I am not really ... I would like
21 you to actually restate, if you could, what the reasons were as far
210
1 as Brindi is concerned as an animal, and then in terms of her specific
2 character or behaviour, as far as you knew about it at the time.
3 A. In terms of her behaviour, the fact that we have repeated
4 history of attacks. A muzzle order was issued, you let her attack
5 again. The matter went to court. There was a court-imposed muzzle
6 order, which you again ignored and allowed Brindi to attack again.
7 Q. All right, thank you. But really the question is really
8 about, I think there was what you just answered, the specific things
9 about Brindi that you said in that answer were about repeated attacks.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay, beyond that we don't know really what kind of attack.
12 We don't know if it's an attack where, you know, under the definition
13 of Aattack@ in A-300 it could be AWhere a dog threatens or appears to
14 threaten,@ things like this, you know, that ... anywhere between that
15 to ripping somebody's neck off. So in that scheme of things where
16 do you think Brindi lies?
17 A. Brindi has caused injuries to other dogs.

18 Q. What kinds of injuries?
19 A. Bite injuries.
20 Q. Like how severe, did they require a ... (inaudible -
21 talkover)
211
1 THE COURT: Okay, just a sec. Let the client, let the
2 witness answer, all right.
4 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right, you were just
5 saying that Brindi has caused injuries to other animals?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. ROGIER: Okay, and the nature of those injuries was such
8 that what?
9 A. Was such that veterinary treatment was required.
10 Q. What kind of veterinary treatment exactly? And, for
11 instance, did they need stitches?
12 A. I am not sure if stitches were required in each case or
13 not.
14 Q. Okay, so it could be something like open-heart surgery,
15 maybe, or it could be a scratch? Is that what you are, as far as
16 you are concerned that's enough to, to ...
17 A. An attack causing injury in spite of multiple muzzle

18 orders, yes, I felt that there was a danger to anybody walking their
19 dog past your property as long as Brindi was in your custody.
20 Q. Okay, the reason I am asking is because, you know, multiple
21 muzzle orders is a very strange thing to me. And it's only come to
212
1 my attention through this proceeding that actually, I have two, and
2 I don't understand why, because at no time, at any point since the
3 original one was the muzzle order ever expired and I don't really
4 understand how it's possible to have a second one issued when the
5 first one was still valid. That's confusing to me. But ... but
6 beyond that ...

7 A. Okay, well, it was a judge ...
8 THE COURT: Okay, is that a question? Is that question?
9 A. ... that imposed the second muzzle ...
10 MS. ROGIER: No, that was not a ...
11 A. ... order.
12 Q. Excuse me. That was not a question. I was getting to a
13 question.
14 THE COURT: Okay, but you are here to put questions to the
15 witnesses.
16 MS. ROGIER: Yeah.
17 THE COURT: You will have a turn on the stand if you choose
18 to do so.
20 THE COURT: It's not to give evidence at this time.
21 MS. ROGIER: Okay. What I would like to do, Your Honour,

213
1 because the muzzle order seems to be the most, you know, the main
2 reason, and I would make comments about that later, I think, when
3 we get to talking about the constitutionality hopefully of this law.
4 But I do want to ask the witness if she is aware that under A-300,
5 under the definition of Adangerous@ there is six definitions of
6 Adangerous.@ Okay, are you aware of the sixth definition, by any

7 chance, with regards to muzzles.
9 Q. So, I am just B
10 THE COURT: All right, I just don't understand that question
11 either.
12 MS. ROGIER: Okay, I would like to ...
13 A. And if I could just clarify she made a comment that the
14 ... it was mainly about the muzzle order, it wasn't. The reason
15 Brindi was seized was about the attack.
17 MS. ROGIER: Okay, but you also told us last time that you
18 ... in five years you had never seized another dog, correct?
19 A. It's never been necessary.
20 Q. Okay, so, but in the last five years, have there been other
21 dogs that attacked?

214
1 A. Oh, absolutely there has been other dogs that have
2 attacked. There has never been another case in which Animal Services
3 has imposed a muzzle order, and the dog attacks again, and the court
4 imposes a muzzle order and the dog attacks yet again.
5 Q. And is there ... okay, is there any ... there have been
6 instances that have multiple offences though, correct?

7 A. I am sure there are.
8 Q. Okay, and there has been many cases where a dog has
9 attacked and has not received a muzzle order, correct?
10 A. I am sure there are.
11 Q. Okay, under A-300, however, what's happening is the
12 definition of Adangerous@ is also a dog that has a muzzle order. And
13 under A-300 there are no criteria for issuing a muzzle order,
14 absolutely nothing. So it's possible, would you agree, that the
15 muzzle order could be issued and since there is no impartial review
16 of this muzzle order, there is no automatic review or hearing
17 involved, that it is possible that it could be done in a way that's

18 arbitrary and possibly not commensurate with the circumstances.
19 Would that be a possibility?
20 A. Okay, you say there is no criteria for a muzzle order, but
21 there is. In the case that a dog attacks an officer may take one
215
1 of several actions including imposing a muzzle order.
2 Q. That's correct. That's correct. And they may also do
3 what, microchip the dog and classify the dog in the registry as
4 dangerous, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay, so the thing is, though, do you see that, you know,
7 in the sense that many dogs attack, in fact, there is about 90 cases.
8 I submitted a record to the court of the dog case prosecutions from
9 2007 to 2011. Things that are made available to the public, there
10 is about 90 cases of attacks. About half of those ...
11 THE COURT: Okay, no, no, you are straying away again ...
12 MS. ROGIER: Okay, I wanted to just ...
13 THE COURT: ... into argument and so on.
14 MS. ROGIER: ... okay, I will try to be ... focus in. Thank
15 you, Your Honour. My question is trying to get at the thing that
16 is happening here. I feel that is important, because I am trying
17 to really get at the actual definition of this in terms of Brindi,

18 okay, because there is no scale in the law, but you yourself are ...
19 you had possession of all the reports and you used your discretion.
20 A. Absolutely.
21 Q. And you also breed dogs, I understand, is that correct?

216
1 So you know a lot about dogs?
2 A. Sure.
3 Q. And I understand also you've read about dog behaviour.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And things like bite inhibition.
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. And can you tell me anything about bite inhibition as
8 according to Ian Dunbar? This is relevant in a sense that you are
9 making a decision that affects the seizure of a dog and it carries
10 with it a very grave circumstance. So I am just interested that,
11 you know, I am glad to know that you have behavioural studies in your
12 background and I would like to here, you know, something about that,
13 and I can ask a question further to that.
14 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, Ms. Rodger isn't on the stand today
15 as an expert on dog behaviour. I think that that question goes beyond
16 her role.
17 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I am not purporting to be an expert,

18 I am asking a question ...
19 THE COURT: No, it's ... the objection is with respect to
20 your questions. What you are doing is asking an opinion of this
21 witness about her knowledge of dogs, bite inhibition, behaviour of

217
1 dogs and so on and this witness is not an expert, has not been
2 qualified as an expert before the Court.
3 MS. ROGIER: I understand.
4 THE COURT: So the question is it's not a fair question to
5 put to that witness.
6 MS. ROGIER: So would that mean that if the ... is the

7 witness in the capacity as an Animal Control Officer, is empowered
8 to seize a dog, required to have any knowledge as far as
9 differentiating between ...
10 THE COURT: You can put that type of question, that's not
11 a question the Court is about to answer.
12 MS. ROGIER: All right.
13 THE COURT: You can put that question as to what is her
14 knowledge as to why she would seize a dog. I think you have been
15 over it quite a lot, but, we'll certainly give you a full range here
16 to proceed.
17 MS. ROGIER: Thank you. Okay.

18 A. Regardless of why Brindi is attacking, the motivations
19 behind it, the level of attacks, the bottom line is there has been
20 a repeated history of attacks by Brindi. And it is not safe for
21 somebody to walk their dog past your residence as long as Brindi is

218
1 in your custody.
2 Q. So, okay, this is a lot of things together and I am really
3 looking for specifics about Brindi. So I understand what's
4 happening now, I am hearing about what I did and I am hearing some
5 things about repeated attacks and they are just labelled Aattacks@
6 and that's what we know. Okay, what I would like ... I don't know
7 if I can do this, Your Honour.
8 THE COURT: You can put to the witness what is her
9 recollection of this, of the attacks. They could be broken down,
10 this witness's knowledge of those prior attacks that she is referring
11 to. I think that would be an appropriate question.
12 Q. Thank you. Could you talk about your knowledge of prior
13 attacks?
14 A. Yes, the prior attacks have all been unprovoked attacks
15 on dogs off of your property with Brindi running loose.
16 Q. How far off the property?
17 A. It doesn't matter how far off the property it is.

18 Q. Just as a matter of interest what would be the, you know,
19 how far in this history are you aware of ...
20 A. It's on the road. It's on the roadway, how far off your
21 property each of these incidents occur doesn't really matter.

219
1 Q. Were they close to my property?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you say from a recollection, how many injuries? How
4 many dogs were injured, including the incident on September 14, 2010.
5 How many required vet treatments?
6 A. I know that ...

7 THE COURT: The question is, how many were injured?
8 Q. How many were injured, sorry. Good, thank you. How many
9 were injured?
10 A. I don't know the details of the injuries in all the previous
11 attacks. I do have the case files here if you want them, if you want
12 to look at them.
13 Q. At the time that you decided to make a determination to
14 seize Brindi, did you review the case files in detail?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. So you came away with the impression of two, more than two
17 injuries maybe, or less than two, or can you pinpoint that at all?
18 A. You know what, I don't recall what the injuries were in
19 the first three attacks.
20 Q. Okay. So that, but you are saying that you made a
21 determination presumably that you wrote it down somewhere about these

220
1 things, but the problem is, I don't find that in the record, exactly.
2 And, are you, when, you write an Information get a warrant, to seize,
3 to enter and seize a dog, and you compile information to put forward
4 to the Justice of the Peace, how closely do you go to determine the
5 extent of the injuries involved and things like that? Did you make
6 an effort to see exactly what led to the muzzle order, or the injuries?
7 A. I outlined the history and the reasons that I had for
8 believing that there was a danger to the public if Brindi remained
9 in your custody.
10 Q. Are there any criteria in the statutes as far as
11 determining what constitutes Adanger to the public@ to the degree that
12 a dog has to be seized? (Not right?) Is it true?
13 A. The law is not that specific, no. It is designed to allow
14 for officer discretion.
15 Q. So it's up to you, they give you this. So I am looking
16 for something now. And if there is a ... if you had any reason to
17 suspect that some of the information was not correct that was
18 accessible to you, would you do something to take any action in terms
19 of making an extra effort to, to look down at, to track it down, you
20 know, if it wasn't sort of clear to you?
21 A. If something wasn't clear to me, I would seek

221
1 clarification, yes.
2 MS. ROGIER: I am not sure if I can do this, Your Honour. I
3 would like to show the witness an Information for Warrant to Enter
4 and Seize from 2008 and, well, it's a sort of hypothetical.
5 THE COURT: Has it anything to do with this particular
6 officer?
7 MS. ROGIER: Well, because I feel that the muzzle order ...
8 THE COURT: No, does it have anything to do with this
9 particular officer?
10 MS. ROGIER: In her decision to seize, I think it does.
11 THE COURT: No, no. That paper that you have. Is it this
12 officer's ...
13 MS. ROGIER: Oh, no, it's pre ... it would have been in a
14 file that she would have consulted to determine whether to seize ...
15 THE COURT: Perhaps the Crown might want to have a look at
16 it. It doesn't sound like it's going to be relevant to me, but ...
17 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, Your Honour, this is an Information for a

18 warrant based on different incidents, issued by a different officer.
19 I don't see the relevance of it.
20 THE COURT: I would agree. There is no relevance to that
21 warrant, madam.
222
1 MS. ROGIER: Is it important that the information is
2 accurate?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. If you had, for instance - can I ask for this
5 hopefully - a report in your papers that said that ... that the dog
6 continues to try and attack people walking along the road, would that
7 play into your decision to seize. Yes or no?
8 A. People walking their dogs?
9 Q. APeople walking along the road,@ is what it says here.
10 A. I have never seen evidence of that.
11 MS. ROGIER: Would there ... in fact it does state on this
12 Information that from 2008 that a witness or a report ...
13 THE COURT: No, no. I just told you that's not relevant.
14 MS. ROGIER: Okay, so, were you ... I will just ask if you
15 had access. Do you recall access to information about the muzzle
16 order that was issued in 2008? You don't have to specify what it
17 was, but do you recall whether you saw anything in the file?
18 A. I have seen the muzzle order, yes.
19 Q. Okay, the one from 2008, and the background to the muzzle
20 order, was that with it?
21 A. I have seen the case, yes.

223
1 MS. ROGIER: So ...
2 THE COURT: Now this you are speaking about this dog Brindi
3 in particular.
4 MS. ROGIER: Right. Would you ever ... if you had made up
5 your mind about a fine, (not to?) fine a dog, and another dog owner
6 contacted you and asked you not to fine, would you consider
7 that ...
8 THE COURT: No, you are putting a hypothetical to the
9 witness. That's not.. .
10 MS. ROGIER: Yes, I realize that, Your Honour. Okay.
11 A. As I recall, that dog owner ...
12 THE COURT: Just a sec, just a second, sorry. Just wait for
13 the questions. I don't know if you can answer. That was a
14 hypothetical. You are not required to answer that.
15 A. All right.
16 MS. ROGIER: Okay. These are ... the kinds of offences that
17 you are prosecuting are a certain type. Are they criminal offences?
18 A. They are by-law offences.
19 Q. They are by-law offences. Do they consider, in the
20 conviction, the intention of the person who convicted them, in terms
21 of their personal liability? Is it something that ...

224
1 A. The personal liability, yeah, I would say ...
2 Q. Does that factor into the ...
3 A. ... that's taken into ...
4 Q. ... as far as you know?
5 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, it sounds like she is starting to
6 ask for a legal opinion from the witness.

7 MS. ROGIER: Well, Your Honour, when they've charged, the
8 owner is asking how much discretion is used by the officer.
9 THE COURT: Well, you have asked that question. You know,
10 certainly she's said that she has the discretion ...
12 THE COURT: ... to seize a dog.
13 MS. ROGIER: When you decided to seize Brindi in 2010, did
14 you have a look at any other materials on file in terms of behavioural
15 assessments?
16 A. Behavioural assessments weren't relevant in light of the
17 fact that she had yet again attacked. My concern is not what her
18 behaviour is 99 percent of the time. My concern is what her behaviour
19 is when is she is attacking other dogs.
20 Q. And in that behaviour is there any differentiation at all
21 in your mind when you make this distinction? When you make this
225
1 determin ...
2 A. Differentiation in regards to ...
3 Q. In terms of severity of the attack.
4 A. Yes, severity of the attack is one of the things that is
5 taken into consideration when using my discretion.
6 Q. How is it taken ... how do you take it into consideration?

7 A. The more severe attack warrants more serious intervention.
8 Q. To your knowledge was there an increase in severity in
9 attack in the history of Brindi's attacks?
10 A. I think it, yeah. I'd say that it is possible that the
11 attacks are increasing in terms of the damages done to the dogs.
12 Q. Can you say that with certainty?
13 A. Well, I am not a vet. So no I can't.
14 Q. In the record, as far as the record goes, is it apparent
15 from the record?
16 A. To the best of my recollection, the injuries sustained in
17 the last attack were the most severe so far?

18 Q. Did the dog go to the emergency vet hospital that evening,
19 like immediately after ...
20 A. No, it received vet care the next day.
21 Q. Okay. So presumably it wasn't life-threatening, the

226
1 injury then?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay, did the dog require stitches. You said no.
4 A. I am sure it's on the vet report.
5 Q. Okay. I was trying to find a photograph for you to identify.
6 I assume you have seen photographs of the injuries?

7 A. Of the injuries to the dog, yes.
8 (MS. SALSMAN:) One moment, (I will?) find the exhibit here.
9 MS. ROGIER: Okay. In your report you stated that there was
10 one puncture wound and two scratches, is that correct?
11 A. Two abrasions, probably.
12 Q. Two abrasions.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. Okay, so and you consider that the attacks had escalated?
15 That they had gone up in severity, correct?
16 A. From the beginning, yes, I thought it was.
17 Q. Okay, and what was the prior incident, do you recall that
18 at all? That it was ...
19 A. That she attacked a guide dog that was being walked past
20 your property?
21 Q. Okay.
227
1 A. I believe was the last one.
2 Q. And were their injuries to that guide dog?
3 A. That wasn't my case, but, yeah, I believe there were.
4 Q. Actually, that's not true. There was another incident
5 though, that did involved injury and that was the one that ended up
6 leading to the muzzle, that ... Okay, just for your knowledge.
7 Could you please, ... (inaudible) I don't know if I have another copy,
8 this is a photograph of ...
9 MS. SALSMAN: I believe they have already been introduced as
10 exhibits.
11 MS. ROGIER: All right. Thank you. Okay, well, I mean,
12 this is a photograph. After the dog was shaved, ... (inaudible) I
13 have so that you see a lot of bare skin.
14 MS. SALSMAN: I believe there is some more that were unshaved
15 as well, if you're looking for those ones.
16 (Inaudible comments re locating exhibit)
17 A. The ones from the night of the incident, yeah, are before
18 the dog was shaved.
19 MS. ROGIER: Do these look familiar to you?
20 THE COURT: Just a sec. Just a second, we will just get you
21 the actual exhibits. Here is the exhibit, actually ...

228
1 (background comments re locating exhibit)
2 THE COURT: Yes, here's the exhibit actually.
3 MS. ROGIER: Oh, thank you.
4 THE COURT: Exhibit 1.
5 MS. ROGIER: Well, here is Exhibit 1. Is this all part of
6 Exhibit 1? Okay. This is Exhibit 1, this is one of the things that

7 Katie Simms described as a spot, that was the injury to her dog.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Okay, can you describe how large it is in comparison to
10 the person's hand and fingers?
11 A. It's about a size of the fingernail.
12 Q. I see ... well, do you think so, really?
13 A. I would say that, yes, that is about the size of a
14 fingernail.
15 Q. There is a fingernail right here.
16 A. Yeah, yeah.
17 Q. And that, I would submit, is smaller.

18 A. The red spot is smaller but the entire injury where there
19 is fur missing is larger
20 Q. Well, they are pushing down the fur.
21 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, she is arguing with the witness.

229
1 THE COURT: All right, no, you can't argue ...
2 MS. ROGIER: All right, so there's ... (inaudible - talkover)
3 THE COURT: ... with the witness if you don't like her
4 answer.
5 MS. ROGIER: Okay, so it's the size of a fingernail, okay.
6 How about that one?

7 A. That's a little bit larger.
8 Q. Okay. Is that bleeding? Is there blood coming from that?
9 A. That looks like it's been cleaned up.
10 Q. Actually these were taken, I believe, the night of the
11 incident. ... (inaudible - away from mic) So have you ever seen
12 injuries like that before on another dog in the last five years?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you seize that dog?
15 A. I have already told you Brindi is the only dog I have had
16 to seize.
17 Q. Okay, so these, this is the extent of the injuries that

18 were, that you saw from September 14, is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I haven't omitted anything as far as the two pictures?
21 A. No, those are the injuries that were sustained.

230
1 Q. Okay, and they are similar. And the vet report, to your
2 knowledge, didn't include anything as far at stitches goes, or
3 anything else. The dog didn't have to be kept at the vet's?
4 A. To my knowledge, no. It just needed to be treated.
5 Q. Okay, so, and the treatment that I recall, and maybe that
6 you can confirm, was that the vet cleaned these wounds and ordered
7 antibiotics as a precaution.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. And advised the owners to keep the wounds clean. Is there
10 anything that I missed about that that you remember? I don't know
11 if that's been submitted or not.
12 A. I don't recall anything more from the vet report.
13 Q. Okay. And the dog was taken the next day. So there was
14 presumably some time. I mean there was certainly no pressing need
15 to go have treatment, then, would you say that's true?
17 Q. Did you answer ...

18 A. The owners didn't take the dog for treatment until the next
19 day.
20 Q. Okay, now you had a warrant issued to you on September 21,
21 2010, is that correct, that entitled you to come onto my property

231
1 and search for Brindi, correct?
2 A. Without checking my notes, I can't specify the date, but
3 that sounds in the ...
4 Q. I have the warrant ...
5 A. ... right area.
6 THE COURT: Is the warrant in as an exhibit at this

7 point ...
8 MS. (SALSMAN?): I think it is.
9 THE COURT: ... because Ms. Rogier is seeking to challenge
10 the grounds for the warrant?
11 THE CLERK: ... (inaudible due to distance from mic)
12 THE COURT: If everything in there was exhibit. All
13 right, so it is part of the ... what exhibit is that?
14 THE CLERK: 9.
15 THE COURT: Exhibit 9. All right. So the warrant is ...
16 and the information to obtain is in there, as well. Okay, Exhibit
17 9.
18 (Inaudible background comments re exhibits)
19 MS. ROGIER: Can you confirm for us that that is the date that
20 you got the warrant issued?
21 A. Okay, I was going to say the warrant isn't actually in here.

232
1 (inaudible background comments re exhibit)
2 THE COURT: So the warrant ...
3 A. Yes, thank you. So it was the 21st of September that the
4 warrant was issued.
5 MS. ROGIER: Okay, and again when did it expire?
6 A. September 28.
7 Q. 28th. Okay, and so did you come to my property before that
8 time, before you had the warrant issued?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Did you walk around on my property, beyond going to the
11 front door?
12 A. Yes, I did. I went and checked the license plates of the
13 vehicles on the property.
14 Q. And under what authorization did you do that?
15 A. That was part of my investigation to determine who was at
16 the residence.
17 Q. Are you permitted to trespass on property without a

18 warrant?
19 A. I don't believe that was trespassing.
20 Q. You don't, do you know for sure?
21 A. Okay, that was not trespassing. That was part of my

233
1 investigation.
2 Q. Can you say that ...
3 A. I also went and knocked on your door.
4 Q. Okay, but do you have, you know, is it customary that you
5 do that every time?
6 A. Check the license plates on the vehicles on a suspect

7 property, yes.
8 Q. Prior to getting a warrant?
9 A. I do normally check license plates because that's one of
10 the ways of determining who the residents of the property is?
11 Q. Were you in any doubt that that was my property such that
12 you needed to check my license plates?
13 A. I don't make assumptions. I do an investigation.
14 Q. And do you know, since you are acting in this capacity,
15 I would assume you are familiar with the statutes that allow you to
16 do that, and I would just, I would wonder if you could tell me?
17 A. I can't tell you exactly what ...

18 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I think it's a little much to ask
19 the witness (to recite?) specific sections of the statutes.
20 MS. ROGIER: Well, I believe that a person that has this
21 authority is obligated to know under which statutes they are entitled

234
1 to do this. It's extremely important as far as the Section 8 of the
2 Charter, but it's also important as far as finding a dog goes, right,
3 as you say.
4 THE COURT: Is this a question?
5 MS. ROGIER: The question I have then is if this is something
6 that you do, you said ... did I understand you correctly, you do this
7 every time in advance of a dog ... of getting a warrant.
8 A. If I am doing an investigation and I go to a dog owner's
9 property and there is no answer at the door and there is a vehicle
10 on the property, then, yes, I will take note of the license plate
11 to determine who was at the residence.
12 Q. This was just a new thing to me because, as you know, I
13 have been the subject of a seizure, and in that case I did not find
14 anything in the file that an officer came to my house and took my
15 license plate, so that's why I am asking you?
16 A. I can't comment on other ...
17 Q. And I don't understand ...

18 A. ... officer's investigations.
19 Q. Okay, and so beyond that, did you find that when you
20 searched under Brindi in the records, was she registered as a
21 dangerous dog?
235
1 A. No, she had a muzzle order on her.
2 Q. Was she registered, classified in the municipal registry
3 as a dangerous dog?
4 A. I don't believe so.
5 Q. That's correct. She is licensed, right? You did find a
6 license?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. And it did not say Adangerous dog@? Okay.
9 A. A dangerous dog designation is not required to be put one
10 every dog that has a muzzle order. They are two separate options.
11 Q. Yes, it's a little confusing actually, an the thing is that
12 muzzle orders can deem a dog dangerous and also be something that
13 can be done if a dog is dangerous, is that correct?
14 A. Depending on how you want to do the semantics.
15 Q. There is ...
16 A. Just because a dog has a muzzle order does not require it
17 to be ...
18 Q. Right.
19 A. ... licensed as a dangerous dog.
20 Q. That's true. Is there a, under the definition of
21 Adangerous@, a dog under a muzzle order can be dangerous, correct?

236
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Under another section, Section 8, AAn officer has three
3 options to deal with a dog that they think has attacked.@ One of which
4 is to muzzle the dog?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay, it seems a little bit strange that it's the same thing
7 coming and going, that is what I was asking. So that, you know,
8 without knowing the criteria, she has a muzzle order. I am confused
9 because you are telling me that she isn't classified as a dangerous
10 dog. The injuries were not life threatening, you don't know ... you
11 know, I don't understand whether it's clear to you whether or not
12 there is escalation involved as far as the injuries that occurred
13 before, so presumably ...
14 A. Whether or not the injuries were life threatening the fact
15 was there was yet another attack on a dog going past your property.
16 Q. Well, we are looking for discretion now. And the
17 application of attack is one thing, right. So discretion to take

18 this (bold?) action, so it's important to be acting in a way that
19 is appropriate to the situation, right? So that seizures aren't done
20 without, you know, due diligence and so on.
21 A. Uh-hum.
237
1 Q. So that's why I am interested, and I wonder, you know, in
2 this first injury that happened, which is only one, okay, that ended
3 up yielding a muzzle order and actually ended up but ...
4 THE COURT: Okay, is there a question, get to the question,
5 please.
6 MS. ROGIER: In your mind is it important at all to know what

7 are the circumstances from other incidents in order to tell whether
8 there was escalation?
9 A. In consideration ...
10 THE COURT: I think you have already reviewed this. Excuse
11 me, I think you have already reviewed this with this witness.
13 THE COURT: The escalation and so on. I have that noted.
14 MS. ROGIER: I understand. Well, from this I am just drawing
15 the conclusion that it doesn't seem very ... it seems a little
16 arbitrary, I think. But that's my opinion. I am looking for
17 something in the law to anchor this to and I don't really find it.
18 I do, however, know some other cases where dogs were seized ...
19 THE COURT: No, but that's it ... see you are getting into,
20 what I would suggest would be your closing argument.
21 MS. ROGIER: Okay. All right.

238
1 THE COURT: You have the witness on the stand now, and I
2 understand that you were challenging this witness's reasonable and
3 probable grounds with respect to seeking the warrant. I hope that
4 might focus you in a bit more on your questions.
5 MS. ROGIER: Yes, okay. Well I can't really say that there
6 is anything else that I can get, you know, any valuable information
7 from this witness as far as getting insight into this seizure other
8 than maybe asking her if when, did she seize her in order for her
9 to be kept for a long period of time, did you have that intention
10 yourself when you seized her?
11 A. I knew when she was seized that the seizure would remain
12 in place pending a court decision.
13 MS. ROGIER: Did it, as both an officer and a person who does
14 breed dogs, if I may ask, does it raise any concerns in your mind
15 when a dog is kenneled, when any dog is kenneled?
16 THE COURT: See you are asking the witness again for an
17 opinion as if she were an expert and that's not appropriate for this
18 witness.
19 MS. ROGIER: If that's ... if the possible outcome of her
20 action though is one that would be ...
21 THE COURT: It's not appropriate for this witness.

239
1 MS. ROGIER: Okay, okay. To your knowledge have there been
2 worse injuries in other dog attacks?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. To your knowledge, have there been worse injuries that did
5 not result in seizures?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Had there been fatalities that did not result in seizures
8 to your knowledge?
9 A. Probably.
10 Q. Probably?
11 A. Actually, yeah, no, I can actually definitely say yes,
12 there have.
13 Q. There have been.
14 A. There has not been another case with such a history of
15 attacks in spite of muzzle orders.
16 Q. Okay, well, we are going to leave that aside right now.
17 I am asking about severity. In terms of fatalities, did these

18 involve another dog?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did they ... or did they involve a cat or another kind
21 of animal?
240
1 A. I am sure that there are some that involved, yeah, other
2 animals.
3 Q. And were those dogs typically muzzled then?
4 A. It depends on the specifics of each case.
5 Q. But they could kill. It's possible they could kill an
6 animal.
7 THE COURT: Okay, now you are getting away from ...
8 MS. ROGIER: Okay.
9 THE COURT: ... we're here about your matter before the
10 courts, these three matters before the courts. And I think you're
11 going ...
12 MS. ROGIER: I would just like to point that out.
13 THE COURT: ... down the wrong road.
14 MS. ROGIER: I guess I leave it to summations. Well, then,
15 do owners in your files, do they customarily take about 30 photos
16 of the dog?
17 THE COURT: That's not specific. I think your question can

18 be more specific to this case.
19 MS. ROGIER: Okay, do you receive extensive information in
20 a typical case that ...
21 A. I have in other cases received extensive documentation of

241
1 injuries to animals, yes.
2 Q. Okay, I just wanted one more time, the warrant information,
3 if I can find it. Okay, we have talked about the warrant information.
4 I don't know if I have to pull out the exhibit to go through that
5 a little bit, if I could just ...
6 A. I still have it.

7 Q. Okay. In the grounds for this belief on the first page,
8 the first report, the first date ... You give a series of dates with
9 descriptions. The first date is September 17, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The second date is?
12 A. May, 2008.
13 Q. Okay, was that a description of an attack?
14 A. Yes it was.
15 Q. That took place on May 2?
16 A. Yeah, oh, wait a minute, sorry. That was the date of the
17 muzzle order, sorry.

18 Q. That's okay. And is there given ...
19 A. But it was regarding an attack.
20 Q. Okay. It gives information about ... Schedule "B" about
21 the muzzle order but do you find anything on here that states exactly
242
1 what day that incident occurred?
2 A. The date of that incident?
3 Q. Uh-huh.
4 A. No, that's not on there.
5 Q. Okay, that's part of the history of the dog, the date of
6 the incident. Was there ... was there any indication ...
7 A. But the reason that I included that was because it was when
8 the original muzzle order was placed.
9 Q. That makes sense, absolutely. I was just looking for a
10 complete history and I don't see the history of the actual event that
11 preceded that. So that it's not clear what exactly that was about,
12 even in the, you know, when or how. It says Aa biting incident.@
13 That's as far as it does say, but it doesn't say the date. Okay,
14 so then a guide ... on July ... the next entry says, AOn July 20, 2008,
15 at approximately 9:30 a.m. Ms. Rogier's dog, Brindi, was running at
16 large without wearing a muzzle and attacked a guide dog being walked
17 on East Chezzetcook Road.@

18 Do you know what kind of guide dog that was? Would that appear
19 in the history?
20 A. I am sure it was in the case file. I didn't feel it
21 necessary to include ...

243
1 Q. Okay, there are lots of different kinds of guide dogs,
2 correct? For sight, for hearing, for ...
3 A. Uh-huh, absolutely.
4 Q. Is there any special significance to that? Should a dog
5 know that another dog is a guide dog?
6 THE COURT: What's the question?

7 MS. RODGER: So does it ...
8 MS. ROGIER: Is there a significance that somehow makes that
9 relevant?
10 THE COURT: Just a minute.
11 MS. ROGIER: What's the relevance of the ... okay.
12 THE COURT: Just a minute, sorry. What was the question?
13 MS. ROGIER: Is there some special significance in terms of
14 mentioning that it was a guide dog?
15 THE COURT: Oh, I thought you said something about did a dog
16 know about another dog being a guide dog?
17 MS. ROGIER: Yeah. Does that add to ... I'll rephrase it,
18 does that add to the gravity of the offence?
19 A. It adds to the value of the property being damaged.
20 Q. Um, interesting. So that's there, but the other incident,
21 the date of the incident is not.

244
1 A. The date of that incident is on there.
2 Q. The date of the actual incident that was for the muzzle
3 order was not on it.
4 A. The previous incident, no. It's just the muzzle order.
5 Q. Then, is there anything between the dates of 20 July, 2008,
6 and seizure date that is indicated next on 24 July, 2008, tracking

7 whether or not the owner of the dog was notified about the biting
8 incident report?
9 A. This is just an information for warrant. It is not a full
10 description of everything that happened. This is to outline my
11 reasons for believing that Brindi was a danger to the community.
12 Q. I understand, yes. Except that there is something that
13 I find odd because the next two pages, this is four pages of detailed
14 information.
15 A. Regarding this particular case.
16 Q. Regarding this event, that go extensively into phone
17 calls. And they go into exactly the contents of phone calls, is that
18 correct?
19 A. The pertinent details of phone calls, yes.
20 Q. How exactly are these phone calls relevant to an incident
21 about ... with an attack, in your mind?

245
1 A. Because they describe what happened in the attack.
2 Q. Is that true, okay, so let's see. On page 3, there is a
3 call made by Bob Riley, it's the fourth paragraph. It says that AOn
4 October (sic) 16 September 2010 at 1:11 a.m. Bob Riley placed a phone
5 call to the Halifax Regional Municipality corporate call centre.@ Now
6 can you say that this is relevant to the actual attack? This is
7 person that wasn't on the scene at the attack.
8 A. Well, it's relevant in terms of your attempts to give
9 misguided ... misleading information and attempts to hide the dog,
10 etc.
11 Q. Aside from your opinion about misleading information, is
12 this relevant to the information that is needed to know anything about
13 an attack? Yes or no.
14 A. This is about ...
15 Q. Yes or no?
16 A. ... seizing the dog. This is about seizing the dog.
17 Q. At this point, had there been a determination made about

18 the severity of the injuries involved?
19 A. I knew the severity of the injuries at this point, yes.
20 Q. And at this point, did you have a warrant? Did you
21 contemplate seeking a warrant? Those are two questions.

246
1 A. That's what this was for, was for the information in order
2 to obtain a warrant.
3 Q. I am speaking on September 16, I guess, okay, never mind
4 that. Strike that. Okay, what I see here are things about calls,
5 attempts to call, two paragraphs down, AAttempted to contact Ms.
6 Rogier by phone.@ I see another one two paragraphs later AAttempted

7 to contact Ms. Rogier by phone,@ and about the voicemail box. And
8 so on, that there is at the bottom of the page, AThe informant emailed
9 Ms. Rogier, both emails referenced ..." This is extensive detail,
10 wouldn't you agree?
11 A. We are required to attempt to note our attempts to contact
12 you, yes.
13 Q. Well, I want to say this is very contrast ...
14 contradictory, contrasted to the first information I do have in my
15 possession. And can you also state that there is an offence
16 associated with taking a dog out of the city?
17 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, again, she is asking for an

18 opinion.
19 MS. RODGER: That was, that was ...
20 MS. ROGIER: A lot of this ...
21 MS. RODGER: That was in terms of

247
1 THE COURT: Just a moment. Just a moment, please. Sorry,
2 what was the objection?
3 MS. SALSMAN: Well, Your Honour, again, I think she is asking
4 the witness to give a legal opinion on ...
5 MS. ROGIER: No, Your Honour, I am asking if there is an
6 offence, if she was investigating an offence by putting so much

7 information in about whether a dog was going to be present in the
8 city or not, which this about, attempts to take the dog out of the
9 city.
10 A. To seize the dog before the dog ...
11 THE COURT: Just a sec, just a second, please.
12 MS. ROGIER: Is that a valid question, Your Honour?
13 THE COURT: For what reason is that question being put to
14 the witness?
15 MS. ROGIER: The reason would be to inquire as to the notion
16 of thorough and complete investigation, Your Honour.
17 THE COURT: I don't think there is much of a ...

18 MS. ROGIER: I don't think here is much relevance to it. I
19 think we should move on. I am just asking you to move on, if you
20 can because I know that we have a long day.
21 MS. ROGIER: And we can move on, Your Honour, I think there
248
1 is no other (value?) for the defence here that I can think of.
2 THE COURT: So you have no further questions for this
3 witness?
4 MS. ROGIER: I do, but I don't know that they are acceptable
5 and I don't have a way to know that they are acceptable,
6 unfortunately. And I did try to ask whether the witnesses was familiar
7 with an offence association with something. So I don't understand
8 quite why that's not a valid question.
9 THE COURT: I think what you have done is covered quite
10 thoroughly the grounds, questioning this witness on her grounds with
11 respect to the seeking of the warrant, which I understand is one of
12 your issues before the Court, for the Court's determination as to
13 whether or not the warrant was valid.
14 MS. ROGIER: Well, then may I ask then, Your Honour, another
15 question if I may. I don't mean to interrupt you, but can I ask the
16 witness referring back to the warrant, is there anything on the
17 warrant language which is when you seize the dog ... I just want to
18 say, you give this ... the owner sees the warrant.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does the owner see the Information to Obtain at that point
21 in time?
249
1 A. No.
2 Q. No, so the warrant is all the information that there is
3 for someone to know why the dog is being seized. We talked about
4 the first part where that says, you know, AWhere it appears on the
5 oath of Valerie Rodger, peace officer, that there are reasonable and
6 probable grounds for believing that Francesca Rogier owns, harbours

7 a dangerous dog identified as follows...@ You give the grounds in the
8 Information, right? Now then you are going to seize and it
9 identifies the address. Does it say anything on here about what will
10 happen after seizure?
11 THE COURT: No ...
12 MS. ROGIER: ... other than ...
13 THE COURT: I just want to interrupt, there.
15 THE COURT: I understand that you are looking at the actual
16 warrant which is presented. That is why the officer had applied for
17 the warrant on the basis of her Information to Obtain a Warrant before

18 a justice of the peace. That's, and then the warrant is issued on
19 that basis, that's her authorization to serve the warrant on you.
21 THE COURT: Do you understand? Just so I want you to

250
1 understand.
2 MS. ROGIER: ... may I ask the witness to explain if there
3 is any indication on this, for the owner of the dog as far as offences
4 that are going to be prosecuted in connection ...
5 THE COURT: No, there wouldn't be, no. That's not unusual
6 at all.
7 MS. ROGIER: Okay. It's not unusual.
8 THE COURT: No, it would be unusual, in fact, if that were
9 to happen.
10 MS. ROGIER: Or a limitation on the amount of the time that
11 the dog would be seized, or be held.
12 THE COURT: No, it's not on that order, it's not on the face
13 of that order.
14 MS. ROGIER: It's not on here. I would submit that that is
15 not ...
16 THE COURT: I should say that the witness can't respond as
17 to why it is not that way, all right, just so you understand.

18 MS. ROGIER: All right, then I guess that is all that I can
19 do then, other ... other than that.
20 THE COURT: All right, thank you. Any questions in
21 re-direct?
251
VALERIE RODGER, Examination by the Court
1 MS. SALSMAN: No, thank you, Your Honour.
3 EXAMINATION BY THE COURT
5 THE COURT: All right, thank you. If could just, sorry to
6 keep you, I know you have been there for a while. Just so I can clear
7 up in my own mind is that with respect to the warrant which we have
8 just been referring to, and the seizure of Brindi, which gave rise
9 to these three charges, prior to that, if I understand, there were
10 two muzzle orders prior to this muzzle order.
11 A. Animal Services had placed ...
12 Q. Or prior to this matter, I should say.
13 A. Yeah, Animal Services had placed a muzzle order on the dog.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. And there was a further attack. And then the judge in that
16 case ... part of the conditions were that the dog be muzzled any time
17 it was outside the house in a secured ...

18 Q. Okay, yes.
19 A. ... enclosure, and muzzled and leashed if it was outside
20 of that secured enclosure.
21 Q. All right. Yeah. And so prior to that first muzzle order

252
VALERIE RODGER, Examination by the Court
1 being put in place, had there been a prior to your knowledge, a prior
2 attack on another animal?
3 A. There was, the first attack resulted in a written violation
4 Notice of Attack. The second attack was when the muzzle order was
5 placed.
6 Q. I see. Okay.
7 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, may I add a piece of information
8 to that.
9 THE COURT: You are welcome to do so if you take the stand.
11 THE COURT: Just a minute. If you take the stand, all
12 right.
13 MS. ROGIER: Well, can I ask the witness about that, then
14 instead.
15 THE COURT: No, no, no, that's fine. I just needed to clear
16 that up.

18 THE COURT: And I believe it had been clear in the testimony,
19 I just wanted to clear up in my own mind what had occurred.
21 THE COURT: All right. Thanks so much, you are excused.

253
DISCUSSION
1 WITNESS WITHDRAWS (TIME: 10:41 HRS)
3 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, that is the Crown's last witness
4 but we did re-subpoena Michelle Steen ...
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MS. SALSMAN: ... for the cross-examination.

7 THE COURT: Thank you, all right.
8 MS. SALSMAN: So this may be a good time to do that.
9 THE COURT: All right, thank you.
10 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, may I inquire as to the motion to
11 exclude evidence which also covered Ms. Steen's testimony.
12 THE COURT: That will be dealt with by me at the end of all
13 the matters, and I am going to deal with it all in a written decision
14 at the end of all the matters, all right.
15 MS. ROGIER: Okay, can I ask then, sorry...
16 THE COURT: Yeah

18 THE COURT: So are we prepared ... are ready to have Ms.
19 Steen?
20 MS. ROGIER: Before I begin I would just like to inquire as
21 to whether by cross-examining her, do I in any way affect some of

254
DISCUSSION
1 that decision in terms of having cross-examined and am I tacitly
2 confirming the admissibility of the evidence?
3 THE COURT: No, no, not at all.
4 MS. ROGIER: Or in any other way confirming.
5 THE COURT: No, not at all.
6 MS. ROGIER: Because I want to say also that I find the ...
7 THE COURT: No, no. Let's just keep going here. Do you
8 want Ms. Steen brought in or don't you?
9 MS. ROGIER: May I just have a moment.
10 THE COURT: Do you want to take a short break?
11 MS. ROGIER: That would be very helpful, thank you.
12 THE COURT: Sure, let's take a short break. Let's adjourn,
13 let's just all say, five to eleven returning?
14
17 THE CLERK: All right, back to the Rogier matter.

18 THE COURT: Ms. Steen?
19 MS. SALSMAN: Ms. Steen.
20 THE COURT: Yes, please, thank you.
21
255
1 MICHELLE STEEN, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: Please spell your last name for the record, and
4 state your full name and spell your last name.
5 A. Michelle Steen. S-T-E-E-N.
6 THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Steen.
7 MS. STEEN: Good morning.
8 THE COURT: We had you return this morning from the other
9 day with respect to your evidence, your testimony before the Court?
10 A. Yeah.
11 THE COURT: And this is just for the purposes of
12 cross-examination now.
13 A. Okay.
15 A. You're welcome.
16
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ROGIER
18
19 MS. ROGIER: Hello.
20 A. Hi.
21 Q. Have we ever met before, in person?

256
MICHELLE STEEN, Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 A. I am not sure about in person, I have talked to you on the
2 phone quite a bit.
3 Q. Okay, so I understand you already testified and I made a
4 little transcript of that for myself, so I am just going to refer
5 to that. We also have a transcript of your calls from September 14
6 and 15th.
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. There was also one from September 16, do you recall that
9 there was a call on September 16th as well?
10 A. I think so, yes.
11 Q. Was that in connection to the same topics that were
12 discussed on the 14th and 15th?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So when you were examined or you were questioned by the
15 Crown Prosecutor, did she ask you if you know who Francesca Rogier
16 is?
17 A. Yes, she did.

18 Q. And how did you answer, do you recall?
19 A. I answered that I was familiar with you through your calls
20 at work.
21 Q. Excuse me. Could you just speak up, it's very …

257
1 A. I have a cold.
2 Q. … noisy in here.
3 THE COURT: I will just, just sit back, that doesn‟t
4 actually amplify.
5 A. I have a cold.
6 THE COURT: You have a cold. Would you like some water?
7 A. Sure. I answered that you were calling the call centre
8 and that's how I became familiar with your case the first time.
9 MS. ROGIER: Okay, on the tape of what I heard, when there
10 was a question, ADo you know of a person named Francesca Rogier?@ And
11 you said, AI have heard of her.@
12 A. I have heard of you through … and then you called the call
13 centre a couple of times and that's how we became familiar with each
14 other.
15 Q. Have we ever met? We‟ve never met in person before at all,
16 right?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So who were you working on the night of September 14,2010?
19 A. The Commissionaires. The Commissionaires had placed me
20 as an HRM dispatch.
21 Q. What is your current post?

258
1 A. Right now I am Park „n Fly at the Halifax airport.
2 Q. You‟re at the Halifax airport.
3 A. I am on sick leave for the moment, but ...
4 Q. When did you begin working at the Halifax airport?
5 A. I wasn‟t … it was a couple of days after the event
6 happened, I went on sick leave and I had back surgery and I was off
7 >til February. Then they placed me at the airport in February.
8 Q. Okay, you don't recall in any conversation with me telling
9 me that you got transferred to the airport then at the time?
10 A. At the time then, no, because I was going on sick leave.
11 Q. Oh, okay.
12 A. I have always wanted to go to the airport, but …
13 Q. So you testified that I had called the call centre a few
14 times, is that correct?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. And you testified I called about the case and the dog, is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did we talk about anything else?
20 A. Through the conversations, we might have. Mostly it was
21 about Brindi and the dog and what was going on with Brindi.
259
1 Q. Okay. So would you say that on the whole, the calls were
2 about like kind of a business call, because they were about what …
3 because of your job related?
4 A. It was.
5 Q. So and is it reasonable then to say that they were of a
6 HRM related basis, the calls in general?

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So in your testimony you were also asked on March
9 2nd by the prosecutor, AIs it usual practice that calls to HRM
10 dispatch are recorded?@ Is that correct? Yes or no?
11 A. As far as I know there is supposed to be a up-front a message
12 on … when people first call in alerting callers that the calls are
13 recorded.
14 Q. What's the …
15 A. We don't get to hear that message, so.
16 Q. So can you say “yes” or “no” if that was … it is true that
17 they are being recorded?

18 A. They are being recorded.
19 Q. The question was “is it” usual practice, present tense.
20 A. Oh, yes.
21 Q. Okay, so in the … September 14, when we talked on the phone

260
1 was it usual practice then to record the calls?
2 A. As far as I know, yes. But, like I said they don't tell
3 us one way or the other whether the calls are being recorded or not,
4 or does HRM dispatch, but as far as any of the calls to the call centre
5 itself are being recorded.
6 Q. Can you clarify, I think I called 490-4000.

7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Who would I have gotten on the line in the evening?
9 A. After hours, you would have gotten me. During regular
10 business hours you get the call centre.
11 Q. So are you suggesting that some of the calls might be
12 recorded and some might not?
13 A. I am suggesting that I am not quite sure if the calls at
14 that time were being recorded. Obviously they were being recorded.
15 Q. We have proof that they were.
16 A. Yeah, yeah.
17 Q. I am asking you if you knew if they were recorded at the

18 time?
19 A. At the time, I suspected that they were being recorded.
20 I didn't have 100 percent proof. But I suspected they were.
21 Q. Okay, so were you aware for certain whether or not the call
261
1 on September 14th was being recorded?
2 A. Not for certain.
3 Q. Okay, do you recall whether I asked you if it was being
4 recorded ...
5 A. Yes, you …
6 Q. … during the conversation?

7 A. Yes, you did.
8 Q. And what did you answer, do you recall?
9 A. I can't remember, I think I said, no, they weren't, or I
10 wasn't sure that they were being recorded. It's in my testimony.
11 Q. Okay, I am sorry I have to find it. To my memory and I‟m
12 … Do you recall why I called you that night?
13 A. You called to report an incident about Brindi.
14 Q. Was that … are you certain about that because I have the
15 transcript here and I am reading to page 1, 2, 3, 4. I am trying to
16 find where I called and stated at the call that I intending to report
17 something, but the, yeah. I just had it, yeah, okay. So do you recall
18 asking me what time the incident happened?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Okay, and do you … Okay, do you recall me asking you, ACan
21 you check the records?”

262
1 A. I, yes, because of an incident that happened with Brindi
2 and another dog.
3 Q. Okay, so the first thing I asked you is on page 4, it goes
4 up to page 4 before I am actually asking. I find me asking ACan you
5 check the records?@
6 A. Yeah, to see if there is any reports of a dog being …

7 Q. Right.
8 A. … of a dog attack. I guess that's how you would say it.
9 Q. All right, and then a couple of pages later, you determined
10 that there were no calls that night.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Is that correct?
13 A. Correct, correct.
14 Q. So you just came on shift so you were just checking.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So, let‟s see … so then do you recall saying this, somewhere
17 or other, I know I am going to come back to the question of whether

18 I asked you if it was being recorded, because I know that it is in
19 here.
20 MS. SALSMAN: It's page 24.
21 MS. ROGIER: Thank you, 24. So I can get that. Page 24, okay,
263
1 page 24. Oh, yes. All right, so I am saying “I am in the last moment
2 of coming, I‟m like a split second away from my house coming home
3 from the grocery store at Porter's Lake.@ And you say, AYeah.@ And do
4 you recall me saying, AThat's two minutes away. And that's what, you
5 know, because this is being recorded is it?@ And do you recall saying
6 ANo@?
7 A. I do recall … I don‟t … if it's there, I said it, yes.
8 Q. So, you said, so you answered ANo.@ That's all of that
9 line.
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. And then I said, AOkay.@ Okay, so I continue talking and
12 I believe in the second call I asked you as well the same question,
13 would you have answered differently in the second call?
14 A. No.
15 Q. So you would have said Ano@ again?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Okay, and that is actually what the record shows.

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay, so, in fact, would you have told me, ANo@ if you had
20 any doubts about whether the call was being recorded?
21 A. I would have said what I thought was correct but at the

264
1 same time, you know.
2 Q. Well, aside from what we know now, at the time.
3 A. At the time I assumed calls were.
4 Q. So you answered truthfully then to the best of your
5 knowledge, is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. So in other words basically, is there any reason to
8 believe that either of us had any idea that there was a recording
9 being made at the time, in both of those phone calls?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay, you are saying ANo.@ Okay.
12 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, this is the material of the Motion
13 to Exclude and because I submit this is inadmissible without
14 knowledge and consent.
15 THE COURT: Okay, that will go to closing argument if you
16 wish to make it at that time.
17 MS. ROGIER: Okay, this is, just so that you know, where it
18 is awkward for me, because I don't know exactly what the witness‟s
19 rights are, I don't know what this entails. Because I want to ask,
20 do you recall, and I think it was on page 6. Okay, page6, okay, do
21 you recall saying basically, AI mean, I shouldn't be telling you this

265
1 but what the hell. Basically, blame it on the other dog even though
2 Brindi is Brindi, you know, blame it on the other dog,@ and do you
3 remember saying that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Excuse me?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Yes. So this is on page 7 where, you know, I call … we
8 established that I called asking about the record, whether someone
9 had recorded?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So, okay, so then is it then true that I actually called
12 to ask that question?
13 A. You did …
14 Q. To ask if there was a report.
15 A. You did ask that question, yes.
16 Q. Okay, and from what I just read you, would it be fair to
17 say that you are actually suggesting that I take a certain action,
18 like by blaming it on the other dog?
19 A. I … yes.
20 Q. Okay. Was that something that I had ever discussed with
21 you before, in other conversations, to your knowledge?

266
1 A. No.
2 Q. No. To your knowledge did I ever talk to you about filing
3 a false report at all?
4 A. False report, no.
5 Q. Okay, now you say in here, I think, somewhere that the first
6 time that we spoke was in 2008, is that correct?

7 A. Yes, if that's when it was because I know whenever Brindi
8 was first seized, that's when you started calling.
9 Q. Right. I believe it was when I have tried to go visit
10 Brindi. I was calling you from the SPCA.
11 A. Oh, yes, yes.
12 Q. Do you remember that?
13 A. Yeah, you called because you weren't allowed to go visit
14 Brindi and I think you wanted to take some bones or something to her.
15 Q. Yeah, I was trying, they told me to call Animal Services
16 so that you were the person …
17 THE COURT: Okay, you can't get into that.

18 MS. ROGIER: Okay, at the time, since then, at any time during
19 those two years between 2008 and 2010, did you have any reason to
20 think that I was lying when I was talked to you about anything?
21 A. No.
267
1 Q. Okay, so do you normally … well that's not a question
2 actually. This was your job at the time for how long, how long were
3 you a dispatcher?
4 A. Maybe three to four years, somewheres in that range.
5 Q. Um, was there anything about the case with Brindi, well
6 let's see, what would you explain is the reason why we talked at all
7 in these conversations, like why I was calling?
8 A. You were calling out of concern for your dog?
9 Q. We really didn't talk much about records or anything else,
10 right?
11 A. No, just about Brindi.
12 Q. Okay. And you also told the prosecutor, I believe, that
13 I used to call the dispatch at other times, when I guess it sounds
14 like there was nobody there, or you weren't there. You say, AI happened
15 to be there. No one at the call centre wanted to take her call and
16 they passed it on to me at dispatch and I guess,@ this is the unofficial
17 transcript, A… and I guess she had a few questions about what was going
18 on. I was familiar with the case.@ I don't know if you recall that?
19 A. Yeah, it's more of a … we deal with more of an animal control
20 issue while the control centre deals with more, other issues.
21 Q. Okay. You were on duty in the evening, is that correct?

268
1 A. Four to twelve.
2 Q. On September 14th?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Yes. And in the evening, was it typical that we would talk
5 in the evenings?
6 A. Only if there was an issue or if you had a question.

7 Q. Were you usually on duty at the evenings?
8 A. It could be … I always worked four to 12 and 12 to … or,
9 four to 11, and 11 to seven.
10 Q. Do you know what time the call centre closes?
11 A. The call centre closes at 11.
12 Q. 11:00 p.m.?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay, so when you say that no one at the call centre wanted
15 to take my call, can you explain that, do you know individuals that
16 would not take my call?
17 A. I think I just meant because it was an Animal Control issue

18 that they take bus calls, they take other calls. We deal more along
19 the lines of the animal control issues. So if a case is too in-depth
20 or anything like that they just pass it along to us. And then if we
21 need to, we pass it along to Animal Control, or …

269
1 Q. I see. So it was really not because of me personally then.
2 It sounds likes you are saying that it was about the matter …
3 A. Oh.
4 Q. … that I was phoning …
5 A. Oh, no.
6 Q. Okay. So, further down you say, AA lot of people really

7 didn't want to talk to her,@ and that's why I am asking what that meant.
8 A. I think that just meant that because of the issue it was,
9 they just pass it on to dispatch.
10 Q. So did you mean by that to imply anything else in terms
11 of me as a person.
12 A. No, definitely not.
13 Q. Or about Brindi as a dog?
14 A. No, just because it was an ongoing case.
15 Q. I see, okay. Do you recall in 2008 in our first call that
16 you checked the record then?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. About Brindi.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall saying anything to me about that after you
21 checked the record?

270
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us what it was?
3 A. Um, I was, I don't think there was very many records found
4 on Brindi.
5 Q. Excuse me?
6 A. There wasn't anything found on Brindi.

7 Q. There was nothing found on Brindi?
8 A. Yeah, just that one case where ... I can't really recall
9 it too well.
10 Q. Yeah.
11 A. But there is one case where …
12 Q. Yeah, well maybe, do you recall making a comment to the
13 effect that you don't understand why they seized her compared to other
14 cases?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But you have been on this job for five years. At the time
17 you were …
18 A. Between three and four years.
19 Q. Between three and four years and you took a lot of Animal
20 Control calls, is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
271
1 Q. A good deal probably, right?
2 A. Majority of our calls are animal control calls.
3 Q. That was your impression. So, now, you say you think I
4 tried several times to call people in a call centre, but would that
5 be an opinion, or would you know that for a fact.
6 A. I think it would be just an opinion. The reason you got

7 us is because where dispatch is just our job.
8 Q. Okay. So when you learned that the calls were actually
9 recorded did that surprise you at the time?
10 A. No, it's a call centre.
11 Q. Okay, I just read you something where … the part where you
12 said that you suggested that I blame it on the other dog. Would that
13 have been a concern of yours that that was recorded?
15 Q. No?
16 A. No.
17 Q. And in the second call, do you actually remember discussing

18 making a report again, blaming it on the other dog.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recall why I called you a second time?
21 A. You called the second time to report what happened.

272
1 MS. ROGIER: Um, I am not, there is staples, do you know which
2 page it starts the second call?
3 MS. SALSMAN: I am sorry, what?
4 MS. ROGIER: The second call.
5 MS. SALSMAN: It starts at page 41.
6 MS. ROGIER: And that was a few hours later, is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay, so we are now at September 15. Now, here's how it
9 started. HRM dispatch, that's you, and I say AMichelle@ and you say
10 AYeah.@ AHi, it's Francesca.@ Operator: AHi. You didn't get any
11 calls did you@? ANo.@ Okay, so the first thing I say is, ADid you get
12 any calls?@
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. So then I said, AOkay.@ So then I think … and then I said,
15 AAll right. I think you‟re right. I think it's the best thing to make
16 a report, okay?@ AOkay,@ you say. Does that sound familiar?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay, so then we talk about making a report. Now at that
19 time, would you say that I was in a state of, or how would you describe
20 actually my emotional state at the time.
21 A. Understandably upset.
273
1 Q. Can you put, you know, how upset?
2 A. Very upset.
3 Q. Okay, so you were aware that I was extremely upset or very
4 upset.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Not to put words in your mouth. And this was a suggestion

7 to make a report.
8 A. Yes, just basically what happened when Brindi got out of
9 the car, that's all.
10 Q. And was this about blaming it on the other dog as you had
11 suggested in the first call?
12 A. Yeah, just about what happened when Brindi got out of the
13 car, or jumped out the window, or I am trying to remember what actually
14 happened.
15 Q. Okay, so further down you begin to do this and I ask you
16 questions about the report. And, you are saying, you know, AShould
17 I write >beside their car and the dog attacked Brindi'@? And I say,
18 AYeah, or rushed at her, yeah.@ So, this is where, this is following
19 up on your suggestion would you agree? This is following up on
20 blaming the other dog.
21 A. Yes.
274
1 Q. When you suggested this, did you have anything, like, what
2 was your motive in suggesting this in terms of filing a report?
3 A. Just about what you said, about how Brindi got out of a
4 car and about how the other dog was there and basically I wasn't aware
5 of who was attacked who, I can only go by what you tell me. So …
6 Q. Well, when I first called you, I see in the recording, I

7 call and the first thing I start saying is, AA really stupid thing
8 happened tonight and I am really worried.@ Now did I tell you that
9 Brindi got out of my car, like, I got a new car today. Do you recall
10 that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay, so I talk to you about this and I describe an
13 incident.
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. Okay, I said there was a dog being walked and she jumped
16 out and she started to fight with this dog, so …
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I did tell you what happened.
19 A. Yes, yes, you did.
20 Q. But now when we have a second call we are making a report.
21 A. Yes.
275
1 Q. About blaming the other dog.
2 A. Basically if the other dog attacked Brindi, that should
3 have been reported, yes.
4 Q. So, to me, this seems like something like, if there was
5 a recording of it, it could be problematic eventually, correct.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And that both of us, or one of us, could get into a lot
8 of trouble for it, possibly?
9 A. Possibly.
10 Q. But at the time, okay, were you in a state of, you know,
11 were you upset?
12 A. I would say I was because it was something unexpected. I
13 … as far as I knew you had gotten Brindi back and everything was fine.
14 Q. Now this is a … now you are working as a dispatcher, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So, you are accustomed to taking reports and so you have
17 had couple hours more on your shift in the meantime and you are just
18 at work, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So there is no particular pressure on you to do anything
21 in particular, right?
276
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did I ask you to … did I begin the discussion, you know,
3 ALet's do this,@ or you know, something that was my idea.
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. And you understood that I was in a state of, like,
6 real upset.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Something that, you know, if you are under stress you
9 might not do things the way you would do them if you are calm maybe.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you say you were trying to help me at the time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Why do you think you were trying to help me?
14 A. I guess, I … in getting to know you over the telephone as
15 I did, I guess, I just wanted to … I didn't want to cause any problems
16 I know that. But, you know, I wanted to get to the bottom of what
17 happened. But, yeah, I guess I wanted to help you.

18 Q. You wanted to help me. You know, the first time we talked
19 I had the feeling you wanted to help me, too, so I am just making
20 sure. I didn't expect that the first time we would talk for so long,
21 so that's why. You took an interest in Brindi, is that fair to say?

277
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In the case.
3 A. In the case.
4 Q. In the case. Because you didn't know me.
5 A. No.
6 Q. You were just talking to me about a case that HRM was

7 prosecuting or doing …
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Or about a decision that was made.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. So your concern was really that a dog had been
12 seized and was facing extermination, is that true?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So I think that is the end of my questions then. So, okay,
15 I don't know exactly what this is on, this is one of the first calls.
16 Do you recall telling me that that … I think something, you said,
17 ABrindi was fine. You had total control of her. She attacked Brindi.
18 Brindi was defending herself even though people may think you are
19 going to have to blame the other dog.@ Does that sound like ...
20 A. I think because Brindi had a bad rap from the start, another
21 attack wouldn‟t look very good.

278
1 Q. Yeah, when you say Abad rap@, do you think that that means
2 something that might be unfair, is that what you mean by that? Could
3 you explain?
4 A. I am not totally familiar with the second case because I
5 haven't worked there since. But, it could be, see I am not sure what
6 happened that night.

7 Q. Well, let me back up a little bit, please.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. When you said that … I was asking you actually about at
10 the
11 time when we were filing that report, you were filing this report
12 for me.
13 A. Oh, okay.
14 Q. I said, “At the time what was your motive?@ and you said
15 something about Brindi having a bad rap.
16 A. That's …
17 Q. So it would have been before that that you meant that she
18 had a bad rap.
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Yeah.
21 A. And then another attack.

279
1 Q. It would be difficult, it was something that you were
2 worried about.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. Okay. So, were you aware that Brindi was seized about seven
5 days later or something like September 27th?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You didn't see it in the newspapers or anything?
8 A. No.
9 Q. When did you first find out that Brindi had been seized,
10 do you recall?
11 A. I went on Facebook a little while ago. My best friend told
12 me about it.
13 Q. Just a little while ago?
14 A. Oh, no, after that.
15 Q. After that.
16 A. Not a little while ago from now.
17 Q. Yeah.
18 A. … but a little while after that, I would say about a couple
19 of weeks after that.
20 Q. When you learned that did you take that to mean anything
21 about what would happen to Brindi?

280
1 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, this is …
2 MS. ROGIER: This is … I am just, I can drop the question.
3 THE COURT: Just let me hear the objection.
4 MS. ROGIER: That‟s okay.
5 MS. SALSMAN: I don't think this is relevant to anything.
6 THE COURT: No, I would agree.

7 MS. ROGIER: All right. I just want to establish what you are
8 aware of, and I think that we have covered everything, so thank you
9 very much.
10 THE COURT: Anything on re-direct?
11 MS. SALSMAN: Just a couple of questions, Your Honour.
12
14
15 Q. So, Ms. Steen.
16 A. Uh-hum.
17 Q. When you were working as an HRM dispatcher, what sort of

18 calls would you take?
19 A. Sometimes we take a lot of dog calls. Sometimes it's motor
20 vehicle accident calls. The police will call down and say ACan you
21 send your service truck to so-and-so and have this cleaned up or that
281
MICHELLE STEEN, Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 cleaned up.@ I would say that on the weekends we had a lot of majority
2 dog calls. Dogs running at large. Dogs biting dogs.
3 Q. And for what purpose would people be calling you.
4 A. Basically we take the information and put it in the system
5 which is call (enhance?) and then we call whoever is on duty for Animal
6 Control to deal with the issue from that end.

7 Q. And you referred to the HRM call centre?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you didn't work there, is that right?
10 A. No, I work for HRM dispatch.
11 Q. Okay, were you aware if the phone calls to HRM call centre
12 were recorded?
13 A. The calls to the HRM Call Centre, yes those were being
14 recorded. Our calls, they didn't tell us one way or the other.
15 MS. SALSMAN: Okay. Those are my questions, thank you.
16 THE COURT: Thank you so much, Ms. Steen, you are excused.

18
19 DISCUSSION
20
21 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I'd introduce as exhibit 11, a copy

282
DISCUSSION
1 of the By-law which is in effect on September 13, 2010.
3 EXHIBIT 11 - COPY OF BY-LAW, MARKED AND ENTERED
6 MS. SALSMAN: And that's the Crown's case.

7 THE COURT: Thanks very much. All right, that's the Crown
8 case then. Ms. Rogier?
9 MS. ROGIER Yes, Your Honour. Could I submit, please a copy
10 of the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter Dog By-Law, as well?
11 THE CLERK: That‟s Exhibit 12.
12
13 EXHIBIT 12 B HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY CHARTER DOG BY-LAW, MARKED
14 AND ENTERED
15
16 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I would like to call a witness who
17 is an expert on dog behaviour.

18 THE COURT: All right. So you want to … Did you have in
19 your materials... Who is this witness?
20 MS. ROGIER It is Susan Jordan and I think you have a report
21 by her.
283
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: Okay, yeah, I presume that's …
2 MS. ROGIER She's outside.
3 THE COURT: Any problems? I just want to bring the witness
4 in and have her qualified as an expert.
5 MS. SALSMAN Well, Your Honour. I don't have a difficult
6 with her being called as a witness, generally. I think that the scope
7 of some of her opinions may be outside of what she can properly be
8 established as an expert in. So I think it may be useful to have
9 her qualified in terms of the scope of her expertise.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Do we have a, do you have her CV, or
11 her ...
12 MS. ROGIER I did submit that with the ...
13 THE COURT: … resume? Is that ...
14 MS. ROGIER: … the Crown is in possession of that. In fact,
15 I should add that she has another capacity as a Board-approved trainer
16 for Brindi from Judge Murphy and she assisted in training Brindi to
17 meet the court conditions prior to her release. So she is very

18 familiar with Brindi. We spent about 25-30 hours of training
19 together.
20 THE COURT: Okay, I think, yes ...
21 MS SALSMAN: I do have a copy of her CV.

284
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: I think, let's bring her on in, then. It might
2 help, just because Ms. Rogier is self-represented, to have her
3 qualified in some way so we can take an opinion from her. I don't
4 know that it‟s, I think it would help, just to allow her to … I have
5 read her materials in the brief that was filed.
6 MS. ROGIER Your Honour, this is off the record. But I am

7 finding it very chilly in here.
8 THE COURT: It is … yeah, we‟ll see if … I find it cold, too
9 actually. If you would kindly, thank you, Sheriff, if you would just
10 … we will just see if we can get that heat turned up.
11 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Your Honour, Ms. Steen has asked me if she
12 is required any longer.
13 THE COURT: No, I don't think so. No one needs her anymore.
14 No, she is free to leave. Thank you. All right. Good Morning, if
15 you will just come forward we will have you sworn and solemnly
16 affirmed.
17
18
19
20
21
285
1 SUSAN JORDAN, sworn, testified:
3 THE CLERK: State your name for the record and spell your
4 last name, please.
5 A. Susan Myra Jordan. J-O-R-D-A-N.
6 THE COURT: Would you like to have a glass of water before

7 you start?
8 A. Not yet.
9 THE COURT: That's fine. Just let us know if you need one.
10 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, may I have a glass of water?
11 THE COURT: Oh, of course. Just help yourself.
12 MS. ROGIER Are you sure you don't want one.
13 A. Not at the moment. I'll probably knock it over.
14 MS. ROGIER: I am trying to find, I thought I had a file
15 prepared for this.
16 THE COURT: Sheriff, just before we start. Is there any way
17 that we could turn the heat up perhaps? Thanks a lot, I appreciate

18 it.
19
20
21
286
SUSAN JORDAN, Direct Examination Re. Qual. by Ms. Rogier
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION RE QUALIFICATIONS
3 MS. ROGIER: Okay. So can I … Susan Jordan, can I ask you
4 what your occupation is?
5 A. I am a professional pet dog trainer and a canine
6 behavioural consultant.
7 Q. And what are your qualifications or affiliations in that
8 capacity?
9 A. Well, I have been employed in the industry for just over
10 11 years. My formal education background is I attended Dalhousie
11 and took a Bachelor of Physical Education. I was involved in the
12 corporate world after that and had a number of courses and training
13 with regards to the humans, and human resources and psychology,
14 sales, marketing training. When I made the transition into the
15 canine world, I became a member of the American Association of Pet
16 Dog Trainers, The Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog
17 Trainers, and an international group called Dog Gone Safe

18 Incorporated, which promotes dog safety throughout the world. I
19 attend seminars and educational courses as available and extensive
20 study within the dog training world with the newest publications of
21 animal behaviour, as science is showing us and articles and so on.

287
1 There is no formalized accredited dog training structure in the
2 world at this point. It is a bit of a stumbling block for the industry
3 because there are a variety of ways at which professionals reach
4 accreditation or knowledge and the only ones who are permitted to
5 call themselves behaviourists must have attended university and
6 obtained a PhD. in animal behaviour. So you can be a behavioural

7 consultant, and you can have expertise, but to call yourself a
8 behaviourist you must have your accredited degree and PhD. To my
9 knowledge, in Atlantic Canada, Dr. Norm MacKay at the Atlantic
10 Veterinary Collage is currently the only one holding that capacity.
11 Q. So, then, today at this point in the proceedings, I don't
12 know if we be hopefully getting an opportunity to return at a
13 different time and for other kinds of questions, but for now, this
14 is a trial that we are discussing about charges against me in relation
15 to an incident with Brindi on September 14, 2010.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Are you familiar at all with that incident?

18 A. I am familiar from conversations that we had related to
19 the behavioural component of it. I wasn't present. So as always,
20 trainers will say that there is probably a lot of canine conversation
21 going on that the uneducated eye didn't necessary see. So, it

288
1 is …
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. … familiar with what …
4 THE COURT: Can I just … excuse me. Just with respect to
5 this witness being qualified or not as an expert in canine behaviour,
6 the witness herself has said there is only one canine expert, as I
7 understand it, in that behaviour, that you have to get a PhD. …
8 A. Well, no, no. You can be a canine behavioural consultant.
9 You are allowed to use that phrasing. You can't call yourself
10 Acertified behaviourist.@
11 THE COURT: I understand, okay.
12 A. But you can certainly give expert testimony or witness,
13 if you have had sufficient training and background.
14 THE COURT: Have you given expert opinion before?
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 THE COURT: Which courts?
17 A. In Small Claims Courts.

18 MS. ROGIER What kinds of cases would you …
19 THE COURT: Just a sec … and do you remember what the
20 qualification was?
21 A. It was with regard to, it ultimately came down to,

289
1 regarding clear ownership of the dog, but the argument by defence
2 was with regards to the care and treatment that the other owner was
3 providing versus what she was providing.
4 THE COURT: What would your position be with respect to …
5 just, I am sorry, I am speaking to …
6 MS SALSMAN: Your Honour, I think that Ms. Jordan … I

7 wouldn't have difficulty with her being considered an expert in
8 training. In fact, that really seems to be her area, but in terms
9 of being an expert and giving opinions on the scientific backing on
10 the behaviour of dogs and how she would be able to predict future
11 behaviour of dogs, I would have some concerns where she doesn't seem
12 to … she doesn‟t actually have an academic background in that area.
13 A. Well, I have academic …
14 THE COURT: Just a sec. To be quite, quite blunt with you,
15 Ms. Rogier, I appreciate, thank you, this witness being brought
16 forward. How much is really relevant, quite frankly, to the charges
17 that is on … that are on that information.

18 MS. ROGIER: Yes, Your Honour, I should …
19 THE COURT: … but just let me finish. But what I think I
20 am prepared to do, because I said I certainly want to give you as
21 much leeway as possible, that we could qualify Ms. Jordan as an expert

290
1 in the training of dogs. But, I am sure that might go over, obviously
2 does get into behaviour, but I think that probably would be sufficient
3 qualification at this point. So I would qualify her.
4 A. As I would say, Your Honour …
5 THE COURT: That's fine, thank you.
6 MS. ROGIER: All right, Your Honour. I fail to note, Ms.

7 Jordan was approved by HRM to train Brindi as part of the
8 court-directed conditions before she was returned to me, so we worked
9 in June, 2010 over the course of four weeks. Is that correct?
10 A. It was longer than that, yeah.
11 MS. ROGIER: It was longer than that. So, Ms. Jordan is
12 very, very familiar with Brindi and with all of Brindi's …
13 THE COURT: That's fine. Go ahead. We have qualified …
14 MS. ROGIER: I just want to make clear …
15 THE COURT: Just a second. Don't talk when I am speaking
16 please.

18 THE COURT: We have qualified. The Court has qualified Ms.
19 Jordan as an expert in dog training. I think that is sufficient.
20 It encompasses, I would expect where you want to go, because as you‟ve
21 said, and what I have read, that she has a lot of training with …
291
SUSAN JORDAN, Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 has a lot of hands-on training with Brindi.
5 MS. ROGIER: Okay, I am hoping that Ms. Jordan can later
6 speak about issues that are related to the Charter claim with relation
7 directly to the laws. Now I would like to talk to her about what
8 she knows from her familiarity in working with Brindi and how she
9 would see Brindi in the spectrum of dogs in terms of dogs that attack,
10 how severe dogs will attack and what measures might be applied to
11 interpret them as whether they are public safety menaces, and to what
12 degree one can make a statement about that with any precision.
13 So, Ms. Jordan, first of all, let's just make one formality.
14 I would like to show you and enter, I am looking for an extra picture,
15 I actually already entered this picture before of the first day.
16 THE COURT: Yes, I remember we have that.
17 MS. ROGIER: Okay, may I just show it to the witness and ask
18 her to identify Brindi in the picture?
19 A. Yeah, that's the dog.
20 Q. Okay, that‟s Exhibit 8.
21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

292
1 MS. ROGIER: What is she doing in this picture?
2 A. She is turning making eye contact with the humans around
3 her.
4 Q. Is there something else that someone is holding to her?
5 A. Oh, sorry, I couldn't make it out. Yeah, she is sniffing
6 on a piece of food item, cake or something.

7 Q. She has got her mouth open, right.
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Okay, so and there is a lot of people around.
10 A. She is in close proximity to the humans, yeah.
11 Q. What about body language? Do you think any of these people
12 are they afraid of her?
13 A. No, there is absolutely no hesitation there.
14 Q. … (inaudible) around people, I know that.
15 A. No, no, but in body language between dogs and humans there
16 is no sense of threat or anxiety there.
17 Q. Okay. So there is such a thing as body language between

18 dogs and humans?
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. Okay, now, when we, okay. Had we ever met before you
21 started work with Brindi‟s training?

293
1 A. No.
2 Q. We didn't have any connection before this, is that correct?
3 A. No, none whatsoever.
4 Q. So would you say our relationship is a business
5 relationship or a friendship relationship?
6 A. It's a business, absolutely, and has been kept that way.

7 Q. And were you compensated for the training work that you
8 did?
9 A. Yes, ma'am.
10 Q. Now, what … let's see. Were you asked to provide any
11 information in particular as you set out to do this in order to obtain
12 approval from the City?
13 A. Well, I had to be accredited by HRM and approved in order
14 to be, I guess, ascertained that I was sufficient background and
15 knowledge to be beneficial in this situation.
16 Q. And you said that you had been involved in other cases?
17 Had you been in other prosecution cases, or dogs that were subject
18 to some kind of By-law A-300?
19 A. I have worked with owners who have been either cited or
20 fined or were under, I don't want to use the word “execution”, who
21 were required to muzzle or leash their dogs as part of a response

294
1 to a fining.
2 Q. So when you began the duties to train Brindi, how did you
3 view that in terms of the degree of difficulty, let's say, at the
4 start.
5 A. Based on what I was told with the historic background of
6 the nature of the incidents, and the response on the part of the dog,
7 it was strictly a behavioural modification for the dog and
8 heightening your education of dog canine communications and proper
9 skills and a skill set to continue moving forward with the behaviour
10 modification and to be able to lessen and to move over thresholds
11 that the dog was experiencing that were causing a problem right now.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. And when you began the training, did
13 you work with me independently first?
14 A. That was part of the structure, is that it was owner, dog,
15 and owner/dog, done in three parts.
16 Q. So you spent some time alone with Brindi, as well.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And where did you spend time alone with Brindi?
19 A. I worked with her at Bell Kennels, and I worked with her
20 both, I did an assessment within the confines initially and then began
21 to work with her in larger areas, and then ultimately when we were
295
1 working together we were able to do more … some off-site work as the
2 skill sets strengthened.
3 Q. So we started out at the kennel together...
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then when it was time to do that, we went to Point
6 Pleasant Park, is that correct?

7 A. Right.
8 Q. We did that, at least twice, I believe is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay, and we had done that … did we do that after Brindi
11 had been returned to me?
12 A. Yes, it was, we did not go offsite until permission was
13 granted for the dog to be returned to you.
14 Q. Did you appear in court as part of those conditions before
15 Brindi was released?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Was she released because you had submitted a report?

18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay, why was she released at that time, that way, do you
20 know?
21 A. Based on my understanding, the Court, to use an ambiguous

296
1 word, seemed to sense that sufficient work was done, that it was all
2 right for the dog to be returned to the owner and to be taken back
3 into public setting.
4 Q. Do you remember, how you viewed that at the time, was it
5 a surprise to you?
6 A. Yeah, I pretty shocked, to be truthful.

7 Q. Yeah, it was a surprise to me. We were very shocked.
8 A. Well, I was ready to, obviously, I had submitted a
9 structure, and I actually expected to be called on that structure
10 as to how it had proceeded and what the results were, and in my
11 opinion, was I prepared to support that the dog was ready to return.
12 And none of that was required at the time.
13 Q. When you first assessed Brindi, by that time I would have
14 assumed you had assessed a lot of other dogs, by that time, is that
15 correct?
16 A. Yeah, I have a large client base.
17 Q. So how would you place her, in terms of mild to let‟s say

18 extreme aggression problems?
19 A. “Aggression” is a very dangerous word. There are actually
20 substrates of the word “aggression.” So the assessment of Brindi
21 was determined that she has territorial aggression, she does not have
297
1 dog-to-human, she does not have dog-to-dog, she does not have food
2 aggression. And it's very important to know which type of aggression
3 is being dealt with in order to successfully modify that behaviour.
4 So in working with her and ascertaining it, it is a territory
5 aggression.
6 Dogs are, by nature, defensive of things that they consider

7 theirs. It is inherent within the species. So the work that was
8 done was for what I would call mild to moderate, because of the way
9 she had responded in the past situations, and the control with which,
10 and the canine signals with which she was using to explain herself
11 in dog language, to what she perceived as a threat.
12 Q. And so, I just wanted to clarify one thing. You said
13 something, we talked about the moment before you met Brindi, how you
14 approached this, and then you did meet her and made an assessment
15 with her person, okay?
16 A. Correct
17 Q. Did anything change in your assessment between those two

18 moments?
19 A. Well, there was obviously prior to working with you there
20 had been some media coverage, and although I try not to pay a lot
21 of attention, specifically because of the type of work I do, and

298
1 knowing that there is a tremendous amount of miscommunication
2 regarding animal behaviour in general.
3 But obviously with that kind of press being out there, there
4 was a bit of trepidation on my part with regards to what I was actually
5 going to see when I came in to visit and meet with the dog.
6 Q. Now she was in the kennel at the time, right?

7 A. Yeah, and she had been put in to confinement in a kennel.
8 Q. Did you speak with the kennel operator?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. And did he make any remarks to you … well, it's hearsay,
11 I'll leave it. He had submit an affidavit, Your Honour, which I will
12 submit. Now, at the kennel, oh, let me ask you the same question
13 about me, just for the record, that you had … you agreed to meet to
14 do this work.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. But not before we met. It was after we met ...
17 A. No, it was predicated on getting a full and complete and

18 as unbiased as possible history before I would accept the case.
19 Q. So were you satisfied …
20 A. I don't take certain dogs into my client files, there are
21 some situations where it's just not appropriate. A dog is not

299
1 capable of enough rehabilitation to safely re-enter society and
2 that's a very mixed bag. We have everything from no-kill shelters
3 through to shelters who euthanize for a variety of reasons, and so,
4 my personal decision is a dog that has lost all bite inhibition and
5 is beyond behaviour modification is really not an appropriate client
6 for me. So I needed to speak with you and find out as much about
7 the previous situations as possible to know whether or not this was
8 a dog for whom behaviour modification truly would be beneficial. And
9 that I wasn't wasting your time or your money, or taking a dog that
10 was incapable of recovery into a system.
11 Q. So then, you made this determination both about Brindi and
12 about me.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And it sounds like it was very thorough in both cases.
15 A. It was over … I take long and detailed histories, and if
16 you recall, it was well over two hours of interrogation for you to
17 give me a full picture, as best …

18 Q. It was.
19 A. As you were able.
20 Q. That's correct.
21 A. And then there was an hour at the kennel of an assessment

300
1 of the dog as well. And that was done independently without your
2 presence.
3 Q. Okay, yes. And when you took her out to the park, did you
4 muzzle her?
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. Yes, that was under by-law or under the restrictions of
8 the conditions.
9 Q. Did you muzzle and leash her in the car?
10 A. I had her leashed. I did not have her muzzled.
11 Q. Okay. And then when you got to the … arrived at the park...
12 A. Before I opened the door, she was put into her basket.
13 Q. Okay, so then you said mild to moderate … moderate to mild
14 or moderate to mild?
15 A. Mild to moderate.
16 Q. Okay, so that it wasn't a case where in your opinion there
17 was a problem that was so severe that you had concerns about the
18 ability to train, or anything?
19 A. Oh, not about ability to, I mean, behaviour modification,
20 as with all species, and I say that kindly – humans, dogs, horses
21 - when we modify behaviour, it is a process, it is not an instantaneous

301
1 aspect. It is a training.
2 It does have thresholds that you work through. And in order
3 to set defined goals and to have steps to work towards, you have to
4 sort of figure out, well, where is the dog at this particular point,
5 and how severe is the behaviour? And, so, yeah, I always have
6 concerns when a dog has any rehabilitation, whether it's a dog that
7 is jumping all over the kids, or it's a dog that's got territorial,
8 or a dog that has food aggression, there are always concerns because
9 they go against the human standard of norm. And we have a very
10 sanitized view of our dogs, and unfortunately sometimes working
11 within those parameters makes it difficult. So you have to know
12 where the dog is in the process in order to set realistic and
13 responsible goals. So I would classify her as mild to moderate.
14 Q. Mild to moderate. Okay, so is there a classification
15 below that?
16 A. No, for example, a dog that does not have any food guarding
17 issues whatsoever, is a dog that basically does not exhibit that

18 characteristic.
19 Q. Okay, so to be clear, I believe you said she has territorial
20 issues?
21 A. Yes.
302
1 Q. She did not have dog-to-dog issues.
2 A. No.
3 Q. She did not have food aggression issues.
4 A. No.
5 Q. She did not have human-to-dog aggression issues.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Would a dog be … what effect if a dog had and mild to
8 moderate behaviour, would two years of isolation from other dogs have
9 on her potentially?
10 A. Potentially, it is of great ...
11 MS SALSMAN: Your Honour ...
12 THE COURT: Yes. Just a moment, there‟s …
13 MS SALSMAN: I think she is verging into asking questions
14 about behaviourism, rather than training.
15 MS. ROGIER Well, can I apply that to Brindi, Your
16 Honour …
17 THE COURT: No, I would agree that is outside of the

18 qualification that …
19 MS. ROGIER: Very good, Okay.
20 THE COURT: ... that the Court has found of this witness.
21 MS. ROGIER: Then you used a phrase that came up before today,
303
1 this “bite inhibition”.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. I would like you to briefly define what that actually
4 means.
5 A. Okay. And I am going to be very carefully because I
6 appreciate the Court's concern about my not overstepping.

7 THE COURT: That‟s fine.
8 A. … but let me preface this by saying that there is no way
9 to be a truly effective training, without understanding deeply the
10 principles of behaviour. You cannot train, if you don‟t understand.
11 It's like being a teacher. If you don't understand the basics and
12 the truisms of behaviour you cannot be an effective teacher within
13 the school systems, so in the same application, I answer this question
14 as a trainer.
15 Bite inhibition is required to be done with all dogs from the
16 moment they are six to seven weeks of age in order to teach them to
17 manage the power within their mouths. Our dogs jaws have the power,
18 strength and ability to crush bones. They are descendents of the
19 wolves. They are domesticated. They are descendants of the wolves.
20 And one of the aspects and the tools that they have is their mouths.
21 So as they are growing, it is imperative that good owners develop

304
1 what is called bite inhibition, which is teaching a dog how to manage
2 the power of its mouth. Dogs with good bite inhibition are heavily
3 socialized, play well with other dogs, have learned how to use the
4 structure, much in the same way humans learn to how to handle their
5 strength and to draw a parallel through.
6 It would be like children on a playground. They have to learn

7 how hard they can play tag, so that they can tag their friend and
8 not bruise or injure them. So our dogs are learning on that same
9 level.
10 So we talk about bite inhibition in the ability of them to manage
11 the power of their mouths so they do not cause harm when they close
12 their jaws down. So we have a variety of warning structures. And
13 the escalation is, very simply, a hard look, a curled lip, a growl.
14 There are four types of nips: air snaps, there is no technical …
15 ninnying, where they just kind of chitter their teeth a little bit;
16 there is mouthing and there is mouthing with pressure. Now mouthing
17 with pressure, can, in fact, bruise or occasionally even create a

18 puncture. It is still considered bite inhibition.
19 A true bite is defined for our industry, is when a dog does an
20 intentional puncturing and lateral tear with force designed to create
21 deep muscle tear. When a dog crosses the line past nipping and moves
305
1 into the escalated full, what they also phrase as >kill bite', it has
2 transgressed the boundaries of what our society deals with well, and
3 are usually much, much more difficult to rehabilitate.
4 I don't work with dogs that have crossed the line into full blown
5 uninhibited bite because it's a very long journey and most dog owners
6 struggle with the difficulty of that kind of level of a behaviour

7 modification.
8 So bite inhabitation is crucial for our dogs to communicate with
9 one another. It is how they send and posture and utilize. For a
10 dog, there is no writing a letter to a solicitor, or calling the editor
11 at the newspaper and complaining, they communicate dog to dog.
12 Q. That's a form of communication?
13 A. It is a very crucial form of communication.
14 Q. Are you able to distinguish that form of communication when
15 it crosses the line into an intention to inflict serious harm?
16 A. Yes, because usually you are talking about extensive, deep
17 muscle tear and tissue. You are talking about extensive stitching,
18 it's … and a full-blown kill bite is a very, very brutal and a very,
19 very ugly thing to see.
20 Q. So that, if I could turn back to Brindi, just very quickly,
21 you said that you did a thorough study about Brindi, her previous
306
1 events or incidents …
2 A. Right.
3 Q. … rather, and did I supply you with some photos or anything
4 after that September 14th incident?
5 A. I don't believe so... No, I haven‟t seen …
6 Q. We have an exhibit on that. I don't know if I can ask for

7 that back?
8 A. No, I haven‟t seen …
9 Q. That I showed it Valerie Rodger earlier.
10 THE COURT: I am sorry, what exhibit was that?
11 MS. ROGIER: If I may … I just want a quick …
12 THE COURT: Of the dog with the wound. It was Exhibit …
13 THE CLERK: Which document?
14 MS. ROGIER: It was the set of photos that were from the
15 disclosure file.
16 THE CLERK: Yes.
17 (background comments re exhibit)

18 MS. ROGIER: It was Exhibit 2. Now in terms of what you just
19 described,
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Ycan you describe how that fits into the photo, the
307
1 injuries that are in that photo?
2 MS SALSMAN: Your Honour, I think that Ms. Jordan is not
3 qualified to evaluate injuries, especially based on a photograph.
4 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, she just did do that, and actually
5 she can specify very nicely, I think for us, so we answer a questions
6 about this that, I think has a lot of relevance to the …

7 THE COURT: Well, what we are getting into is outside of,
8 once again, the parameters of the qualification, here, which was dog
9 training. It was not …
10 MS. ROGIER: Well …
11 THE COURT: No, the qualification was not expertise in what
12 a bite wound looks like, or it could be interpreted as. I appreciate
13 is well … has a great knowledge in that regard, but that's not the
14 parameters of the qualification for this trial.
15 MS. ROGIER: Could we allow that the witness does not
16 necessarily have those type but simply has from a different point
17 of view as a trainer her opinion? And just set it that way. It

18 doesn't necessarily mean that it has have to be taken as …
19 THE COURT: No, I have noted what the witness has described,
20 which was once again, getting outside of the parameters, but I am
21 giving you lots of leeway here about bites that graduate from nips
308
1 to kill bites. I have noted that, as I say, is outside the
2 parameters, but I don't want to be too strict given that you are
3 self-represented and I appreciate, I think, where you are going with
4 respect to the testimony of this witness, but no, I am not going to
5 allow the witness to give what would basically be a
6 veterinarian‟s …
7 MS. ROGIER: The dilemma for me, Your Honour, as a
8 self-representing, and as even I think a lawyer would have the
9 problem, is that a veterinarian can look at the health implications
10 of an injury, not the behavioural. And the issue at stake is
11 behavioural so.
12 THE COURT: I am not, sorry. We are going to move on, here.
13 Okay.
14 MS. ROGIER: Okay. It limits what I can do.
15 THE COURT: There is no vet here, I have already given my ruling
16 with respect to the question that you want to put to this witness,
17 and it is a no.
18 MS. ROGIER: Then, Your Honour, could I please be allowed to
19 provide some photographs of Brindi at the, so the witness might look
20 at as far as body language with other dogs present?
21 THE COURT: Did you want to look at those first?

309
1 MS. ROGIER: She has not seen these before.
2 MS. SALSMAN: I am not sure what purpose for this to be
3 introduced.
4 THE COURT: I am not sure. I think that's fine I think under
5 the circumstances that would be fine.
6 MS. ROGIER: Thank you. And I can … (inaudible – away from

7 mic) Are there are any signs that the other dog in that photograph
8 has any kind of fear?
9 THE COURT: Did you want that marked as an Exhibit?
10 MS. ROGIER: Yes, please, thank you.
12 MS. ROGIER: The Crown has a copy.
13
14 EXHIBIT 13 - PHOTOGRAPH OF TWO DOGS, MARKED AND ENTERED
15
16 MS. JORDAN: Okay, so there are two dogs in the photo.
17 THE COURT: Okay, just wait a second, I just want to

18 have …
19 A. Oh, I am sorry.
20 THE COURT: Okay, I don't know if there is a copy for the
21 Court or not. Sorry, I am just jumping in the middle here. So that

310
1 is Exhibit 13... All right, thanks, go ahead then.
2 A. Okay, so there is two dogs present in the photo. Brindi,
3 which is the larger dog on the left side of the photograph, and then
4 there is … appears to be a Yorkshire Terrier mix or Yorky Terrier
5 in the arms of the owner on the lap. The Yorkshire terrier is showing
6 more stress because of the restraint in the owner's arms.

7 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I am sorry to interrupt, but, I
8 think again, we are going (overly?) …
9 MR. ROGIER: Okay, just … actually, yeah, yeah.
10 THE COURT: We‟re getting back into behaviour.
11 MS. SALSMAN: … we‟re going very straightforwardly into
12 giving opinions about the behaviour of the dogs in these photographs.
13 THE COURT: And it‟s I don‟t think …
14 MS. ROGIER: I agree.
15 THE COURT: … there‟s much relevance here in any event,
16 yeah, sorry.
17 MS. ROGIER: Okay, that‟s all right. But that is Brindi in

18 the photo.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And she is with a smaller Yorkshire, Yorky.
21 A. Yes.
311
1 Q. Can you comment … can she comment on whether Brindi looks
2 like she is under control?
3 A. Yeah. Her mouth is open and relaxed.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. The facial structure on the dog is what we look to encourage
6 in training for acceptable behaviour of dogs in the presence of other

7 doges and humans.
8 Q. Thank you. So returning to this, now this was the summer
9 of 2010. And we talked about the start of our work together, and
10 the court required training of Brindi while she was still in the
11 kennel.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. We talked about that when she was released that it was a
14 surprise and we fully expected to be required to meet the requirements
15 to go back to court, but that somehow the judge conveyed to the clerk
16 in the detail that she could be released without any submissions of
17 any assessment at that point. Is that correct?

18 A. Right. Correct.
19 Q. Okay. And then the dog run that was a court condition
20 of …
21 THE COURT: Excuse me, Ms. Rogier, you should be standing

312
1 here addressing the witness, thank you.
2 MS. ROGIER: Okay, excuse me. All right, So then, at the
3 time then, were you satisfied at the time that she was released to
4 me, that the two of us had made sufficient progress?
5 A. We had met all the criteria and more of what had been
6 outlined in the original submission to HRM.

7 Q. And who set those criteria, to be fair? Who is that set
8 out elaborate criteria to be met?
9 A. Well, it was a combination of what the judge's requirements
10 as well as our consultation on what we saw as goals for achieving
11 again, the judge's requirements and above and beyond to ensure
12 compliance.
13 Q. Right. So we had her back at a certain point at my house.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. Now the reason that we … What was the reason we continued
16 after that.
17 A. What we wanted to ensure is that we were proofing, given

18 the confinement that she had been involved in, and whenever a dog
19 is in a confinement situation, there is always a danger of
20 backsliding. You want to make sure that when you are training, we
21 talk about thresholds. That if a dog is pushed beyond its threshold

313
1 it can revert back into spontaneous recovery even old behaviour. So
2 the more you proof a dog, the more you prepare and push far beyond
3 what would normally be a threshold event. The dog is going to be
4 more stronger and more skilled.
5 Q. Okay so when you say proof, does that entail exposing her
6 to other dogs?
7 A. Absolutely, and …
8 Q. So that a certain amount of risk is impossible to avoid
9 would you say or ...
10 A. Well, the risk is always managed, because we followed
11 through on Court criteria with the leashing, with the muzzling to
12 ensure that what we were doing was allowing a training process to
13 move forward without impinging on the criteria laid out by the court.
14 Q. Now, if there was another attack at that point in time,
15 would that somehow reflect on your overall assessment of Brindi?
16 A. I am sorry, if Brindi was attacked or …
17 Q. If there was, well, if there was an attack, we could talk

18 about Brindi that‟s right.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. But when Brindi was, you know, reported to have attacked,
21 at that point, first of all, when did you learn about it?
314
1 A. It wasn't until after the event.
2 Q. Was it that evening?
3 A. Later that … yeah.
4 Q. Did I call you that evening?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Okay. To seek advice?

7 A. Yeah, because you were concerned that you didn‟t …
8 THE COURT: Just ... so we are talking about September 14th?
9 MS. ROGIER: September 14 …
10 THE COURT: 2010.
11 MS. ROGIER: Yes, Your Honour, that we spoke.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. Okay. And I expressed my deep concerns ...
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay, and I told you about the event.
16 A. Right.
17 Q. So then, I kept you up-to-date after that, is that correct?

18 A. Yes, so that I knew what was going on.
19 Q. You, I believe, sent a letter to the City, is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. About what, do you recall? I am going to lose that ...

315
1 the City is in possession of it, and I believe that the Court is in
2 possession of it. You sent one on ...
3 A. There was one on October 5th.
4 Q. October 5, Your Honour, I think it is in the package.
5 THE COURT: It is.
6 A. And then there was a second one following on December 2nd.

7 MS. ROGIER: Okay, what was the gist of ... very briefly, what
8 was the gist of the letter on October 5th?
9 A. It was, um, it was about the isolation that she was
10 currently positioned at, given the amount of work we had done to bring
11 her up to a certain standard, and through this isolation we were going
12 to lose the hard-fought ground that we had between the training and
13 desensitizing and the progress that had been made. It's like any
14 good skill set, if you don't continue to maintain it you will
15 backslide. Behavioural is an ongoing, it's a fluent, viable
16 component. And I know I am using the word “behaviour” in there, but
17 I can ... as a trainer I cannot avoid that word.

18 Q. All right, that‟s ...
19 A. Behaviour fluctuates, and without constant rehabilitation
20 and work, we will lose ground.
21 Q. So that, it was ... you would say that is fair to expect

316
1 that there might be backsliding, or whatever?
2 A. Yeah, well, when you stop practicing something, it's like
3 a golfer. If they are not out there practising their swing they are
4 going to become rusty.
5 Q. Is it possible to continue that kind of adjustment or
6 process, growth process or training process while confined?

7 A. It is extremely difficult, unless, you know, you have got
8 somebody who is taking a dog on a daily basis and maintaining and
9 working.
10 Q. And taking them where?
11 A. In proximity to other dogs.
12 Q. Okay, but to your knowledge, is Brindi able to be in contact
13 with ...
14 A. Not to my knowledge. I have yet to be able to visit the
15 kennel. I haven't actually had an opportunity to go out.
16 Q. Have you requested to see Brindi?
17 A. I did put a request in and have heard no response.

18 Q. So on this letter at the end on the second page, “In my
19 opinion the current situation will not complement, sustain or nurture
20 the effort and training that has been part of the last two months
21 of Brindi's life. Additionally, her health both physically and

317
1 physiologically may deteriorate and suppress her immune system. She
2 already has health issues.” And so you say.
3 “I wish to emphasize that although Brindi demonstrates territorial
4 aggression towards other dogs, this does not translate into
5 aggression towards humans. It is my understanding that no charges
6 have been laid against the owner. Until the investigation is

7 complete, and a final judgment has been ordered, I would recommend
8 that the dog be returned to the owner's care, with the same original
9 provisions for care and management as previously decreed by the
10 court.@ Is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, in the, if I could ask this question. I hope that
13 I am allowed to. If the witness could please comment on, to her
14 knowledge, from the details that you know, and I did talk to you right
15 after the incident and since then, and the other incidents that you
16 had researched, can it be said that Brindi's behaviour had escalated
17 in terms of the aggression or threat?

18 A. No. It...
19 THE COURT: Well, that is getting into behaviour, but I will
20 allow you to answer the question.
21 A. Okay.
318
1 MS. ROGIER: When the ... because something that an Animal
2 Control Officer makes a determination about these things to some
3 degree, that we try, we had discussed today, and the comment was
4 made that they are not qualified to go deeper than an attack, that
5 can they can only ... they decide whether there was an attack.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. So, we know that there was an attack, or there were (other?)
8 attacks, so we ...
9 A. The complexity with Brindi is quite simple. She is a dog,
10 she is not human. She doesn't recognize surveyor's line or property
11 markers. She has had a history of territorial aggression from the
12 first two incidents and that was what we were working on, was to
13 provide and prevent this from happening again.
14 The work we had done had done in neutral environments, like Point
15 Pleasant Park, because you don't push a dog over threshold too fast.
16 For proper training you have to build up until you get to the threshold
17 and where we were at is our next step was to then begin working
18 extensively on property, now that we had ascertained that she was
19 comfortable around dogs in neutral environments and there were no,
20 obviously when we go to neutrality like Point Pleasant Park, you‟re
21 not in their territory.

319
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. To come back to your environment, our steps at that stage
3 were then to continue with helping her to desensitize against dogs
4 moving in and around. When she escalates and feels threatened by
5 the presence of these other dogs, she is responding to a perceived
6 threat, but she has been posturing the whole time and that‟s ... when
7 we first spoke, whether or not she was a dangerous dog by trainer‟s
8 definition of it, the answer was no. Because in every case she has
9 exhibited very sustained bite inhibition and has postured and
10 withdrawn.
11 Q. So in other words, she has shown restraint, is that fair?
12 A. Yes, because without restraint, you would not have been
13 able to separate either of those dogs from one another.
14 Q. So in any of the incidents that you know about or in your
15 observations ...
16 A. Right.
17 Q. You were satisfied that she was able to show restraint.

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It would hold her back from causing serious damage.
20 A. She may still posture, because we hadn't worked on property
21 sufficiently to complete that process, but she had certainly not

320
1 escalated ...
2 Q. Okay, so yes ... just ...
3 A. ... and was still exhibiting canine restraint.
4 Q. All right. So now just a yes or no quickly. Did we have
5 a plan to continue doing this training?
6 A. Yes, yeah.
7 Q. We were planning to go on the property...
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. ... specifically to desensitize her and ...
10 A. And to work on reliable recall on property.
11 Q. On the property. “Recall” meaning obedience, right?
12 A. Comes to first call on command.
13 Q. Okay. You had said that you were satisfied at the time,
14 and we were ... would you say that the court had any involvement or
15 any supervision at this point?
16 A. Oh, no. This was our determination that these goals were
17 above and beyond what had been defined.

18 Q. This was voluntary.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This was not necessary in order for me to have her back
21 in other words?
321
1 A. No.
2 Q. This was ... really we had a goal.
3 A. No, this was necessary for you to feel confident that you
4 and your dog were not going to transgress against the rules?
5 Q. If I say to you my goal was to make Brindi as perfect as
6 possible, does that sound like ...

7 A. Yes, that's pretty much how you phrased it all along, yes.
8 Q. Is that your understanding from ...
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes. Because why?
11 A. Because you didn't want to lose her again.
12 Q. And, because in general, when you met me?
13 A. Well, I would consider you in the way you responded in the
14 case and in comparison with other clients, you are an extremely
15 responsible dog owner. You haven't always known in the past what
16 the best steps were, and that was my role as a trainer was to provide
17 you with the knowledge and the tools to deal with the dog you had
18 in front of you to achieve the best possible dog.
19 And that's responsible and caring ownership.
20 Q. Would you say, in general, I was concerned about dogs?
21 Just dogs.
322
1 A. Yeah, yes I would.
2 Q. Now, I just lost my ... oh yeah. We were planning to do
3 this at the time, and after this event happened and Brindi was seized,
4 were you still willing to work with Brindi and me?
5 A. Oh, yeah. And would still to this day?
6 Q. And that would be in return for a business arraignment,

7 right. I would pay you, and ...
8 A. Oh, yes. I am sorry, I don't give it away for free.
9 Q. So, in your experience, have you ever worked with a dog
10 that has been confined for such a length of time before?
11 A. No, I haven't.
12 Q. So would that be a challenge?
13 A. It would be challenging in that my concern for the dog's
14 emotional and mental health, yes. Dogs in long-term confinement are
15 stressed animals and stress is a high contributor to a variety of
16 health and behavioural.
17 Q. So a dog can have a traumatic effect from stress?

18 A. Well, yes, stress is responsible for 97 percent of canine
19 and human problems.
20 Q. So that ... But you view the prospect of rehabilitation
21 in terms of the entire environment and the picture, Brindi in my home,

323
1 and me working with you do you have an optimistic view?
2 A. Yes, the other aspect here sadly, because of the amount
3 of time involved, Brindi is getting older, and so there are going
4 to be certain physiological changes to her body and energy
5 differences in her brain chemistry that she's not going to be as
6 reactive simply because age is now going to be a factor for this dog,
7 as well, and that's always something we consider in the amount of
8 stimulation and work that they even require as they get older?
9 Q. So are you saying that might have an effect of dampening
10 reactivity.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. She will calm down.
13 A. And if she is, you know, achy, or her joints are getting
14 old, you now, getting up and chasing a ball isn't going to be as much
15 fun, certainly let alone, going after, you know, what she perceives
16 as a threat.
17 Q. Okay. I don't know if we were going to discuss anything

18 more. Oh I guess, would you say that in regard to the conditions,
19 the court conditions, which were continuing training to the point
20 that the court was satisfied. Complying with the muzzle order,
21 paying fines, and what was the fourth one ... training, muzzle order,
324
1 oh, the dog run.
2 A. Right.
3 Q. So to your knowledge, did I comply with those things?
4 A. Ah, from every aspect of ...
5 THE COURT: No, that‟s ... sorry, no, that‟s not an
6 appropriate question. Sorry.

7 A. ... of my, I was going to say of my involvement.
8 MS. ROGIER: All right, well, let me put it this way. That
9 was not actually ... that was not my question that I actually wanted
10 to say. I don‟t know ... Under those conditions ...
11 A. I could speak to the training, but...
12 Q. Yeah, only what you could answer. I was heading in a
13 different direction, though. The ... I just lost it, in your
14 experience with working with other dogs whose owners are in similar
15 situations, let's say, whose dog ... you‟ve worked with other dogs
16 ... dogs who have been seized? Owners whose dogs have been seized?
17 A. I've worked with dogs who have had restrictions levied upon
18 them.
19 Q. Seized as well or?
20 A. I haven't worked with a seized dog previously. I have had,
21 without going into specifics, obviously, I have to respect their

325
1 privacy ...
2 Q. Just ... yeah, but ...
3 A. ... but I have had probably at least a half a dozen cases
4 in the last few years where the dogs have been cited or fined or been
5 given restrictions with regards to muzzle and leash management.
6 Q. So that was the last few years out of the 11 years you have
7 been a...
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. So in other words, I have had others in the past, but most
11 recently under the current guidelines.
12 Q. Okay, all right and so, Brindi you ranked as mild to
13 moderate amongst those, but among those other dogs, there were
14 presumably, variations in there.
15 A. Yeah, I have had ... I have had mild and moderate and
16 escalated. And, I have also done temperament testing for a couple
17 of rescue groups with dogs that have not passed, that are extreme
18 and are of grave danger.
19 Q. When you saw me a lot with Brindi, handling Brindi, in
20 different ... well, we did go to Point Pleasant. We had her on a
21 leash, we had her muzzled and so on, and you saw me coming arriving,
326
1 and you know, taking her out of the car by myself, and so on.
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. Did you have any cause for concern, at all, at any time,
4 when you saw me with her?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And so there was no to your, sort of regard, I never

7 expressed to you, in other words, that I didn't want to muzzle her
8 or I didn't want to follow the conditions.
9 A. No, I think the concern with regards to the muzzle when
10 we first started working was making sure that the muzzle we were using
11 was appropriate for both training and for her health and, you know,
12 in that regard, the basket muzzle is the only way to safely have a
13 dog muzzled in order to allow them to pant, and to be able to reward
14 them with food when the behaviour is compliant.
15 Q. So, would you say that I am willing to follow the
16 conditions?
17 A. Yeah.
18 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I don‟t think she could answer that
19 question...
20 MS. ROGIER: And I am able to follow them.
21 A. Yeah, in our work.

327
1 THE COURT: That right, yeah, no sorry. No excuse me. No,
2 you can‟t answer that question. I am just looking at the clock,
3 are you almost finished with your questions?
4 MS. ROGIER: Well, it has been said by other witnesses that
5 I am unwilling and unable, Your Honour. I think it's fair that a
6 witness that has the ability to speak about dog behaviour, make that
7 a comment, as well, and subjected to her opinion. So may the witness,
8 answer?
9 THE COURT: No, once again, I repeat myself, that the
10 parameters have been set with respect to the expertise of this
11 witness.
12 MS. ROGIER: All right. Do you have any other concerns about
13 Brindi as far as returning her to me in my care?
14 THE COURT: The witness has already answered that
15 question.
16 MS. ROGIER: And the answer was in the negative, is that
17 correct?
18 THE COURT: The witness ... I‟m not answering your
19 question.
20 MS. ROGIER: That‟s fine.
21 THE COURT: The witness has already answered those

328
SUSAN JORDAN, Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 questions.
2 MS. ROGIER: Okay, then. I think that's all that I will have
3 for this witness, thank you.
4 THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Okay, Ms. Salsman?
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7
8 MS. SALSMAN: Now, Ms. Jordan, you said that when you first
9 meet with the dog, you evaluate whether you think that they are going
10 to be able to be properly trained out of their ... whatever the
11 problematic behaviour is, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And have you ever been wrong? Have you ever had a
14 situation where you felt that the person, the dog could be trained
15 out of the behaviour and then by the end of the training you realized
16 they couldn't be?
17 A. No, dogs are actually high predictable creatures. And

18 with the level of science and assessment that we have available to
19 us at this point in time, there may be steps where you take smaller
20 increments in a training process to get to the goal, but in terms
21 of completely missing the beat, no.

329
1 Q. So in 11 years, when you had someone in, for instance for
2 biting, you have never had a situation where by at the end of the
3 training they were still biting?
4 A. No, safety is the first and the most important aspect of
5 training for any ethical training. It is that the dog and the humans
6 at whatever age and stage, that safety is our first rule. We do not
7 set a dog up to fail. It's imperative we do not fail either the owners
8 or the dog.
9 Q. Okay, now you talked about previously that it was your
10 opinion that Brindi, in all of these attacks, had shown restraint.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now you obviously weren't there for any of those attacks?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So the information you had about the attack came from Ms.
15 Rogier, is that right?
16 A. It's based on the information that I had from meeting with
17 her and then the reports that I read from the first trials.
18 Q. Right, okay. But you never actually spoke with, for
19 instance, the owners of the other dogs or any other witnesses at the
20 scene of those attacks, is that right?
21 A. No, I did not. I did not feel it was appropriate for me

330
1 to speak to them.
2 Q. Okay. Now you also said that on the night of September
3 14, 2010, Ms. Rogier called you.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And she told you about what happened that day?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So what did she tell you happened that day.
8 A. Well, she said that Brindi had offended, that she had
9 gotten loose and that she wasn't 100 percent at the time that I spoke
10 to her, obviously she was upset because she realized that this was
11 more than worrisome. And it was dark, as well, so a perfectly clear
12 view of everything that was going on, but she felt that Brindi had
13 moved out of the car and towards the other dog, and the other dog
14 had moved towards Brindi. And so we had two dogs meeting together.
15 And, my understanding is that the other dog was at large, as well,
16 off leash, and that the two dogs came together and that Brindi
17 postured over and pinned the dog and then released the dog.
18 Q. Okay, and do you recall if she told you that Brindi actually
19 came out of the window of the car?
20 A. Yes, she talked about the fact that she wasn't sure whether
21 she went out the window, like she was still upset when I ... like
331
1 in all honesty, it was, for me to say a clear yea or nay...
2 MS ROGIER: We are going back two years ago, Your Honour,
3 I don‟t know if that's a fair question to ask at this point.
4 THE COURT: No, it's certainly a fair question, overruled.
5 A. All right. She was upset and, my big concern, in all
6 honesty, was not how the dog got out, but that the dog was involved
7 in an incident and to understand ... once I knew it was on property,
8 because the concern was territorial. So once I knew that it was
9 occurring on property, that's really where my focus went to as it
10 was on property, the other dog was at large, and the two dogs came
11 together, and then what was Brindi's reaction and then what were the
12 owner's reactions, as well. Because that obviously exacerbates the
13 situation substantially.
14 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, so from what Ms. Rogier told you, though,
15 it seemed that this was another example of the territorial
16 aggression.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Now you talked about the owner. And the owner is always
19 significant when it comes to dog training. Is that right?
20 A. Absolutely.
21 Q. So you really have to have an owner who is willing to take

332
1 all the steps?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And take any precautions, is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So, for instance, most territorial aggression could be
6 prevented if the dog is kept from running at other dogs on the

7 property, would you agree with that?
8 A. That's a very clean, simple way of putting it. Let me give
9 you, just to give you an example. A dog who was on an electric fence
10 and runs back and forth across the fence, we nickname that fence
11 fighting. That's territory aggression. All right. The dog has
12 decided not to take the jolt and go over, but there are dozens of
13 situations where, ultimately, that dog is believed to be confined
14 by the electric fence, and yet at some point the dog will escalate,
15 take the jolt, and then I get the, “All of a sudden for no reason
16 at all the dog jumped over the fence and went after another dog.@ This
17 has been (a bill?) But the dog was believed to be safe and under
18 confinement by a responsible owner. So it's a little bit about,
19 you know, you do everything you can, and you believe you have taken
20 all the appropriate steps, but there will be, you know, the odd
21 incident that the owners don't always precipitate as potential

333
1 problems.
2 Q. Okay, now you said that when Brindi was returned to Ms.
3 Rogier that you felt that Brindi was ready at that point, is that
4 right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And so you felt that the issues that really had come up
7 at the trial, that a lot of those had already been dealt with by that
8 point.
9 A. That we had solid training in place for both owner and dog.
10 Q. And the issues that we are talking about there is
11 territorial aggression.
12 A. Right. And that it was under management. And because we
13 were continuing to work together, it wasn't a case of, okay, I have
14 just cleared off the court requirements, now take a hike, honey.
15 There was none of that attitude ever expressed by the owner. It was
16 always a case of wanting to work until we got to a ...
17 You never completely relax with any dog. You never fully trust
18 any dog, but you do everything you can to build as many safeguards
19 as possible and develop as reliable a response from the dog as you
20 can. And we knew we weren't at that 99.9 percent reliability and
21 we were going to continue to work forward to it, but with the protocols
334
1 in place, and with the training in place, leashing and muzzling, yes,
2 I felt the dog was more than ready to go home.
3 Q. Okay, but without a leash and a muzzle you would have had
4 some concerns.
5 A. Well, there was still, because we had not completed the
6 on property step. Yes, obviously there are going to be those aspects

7 that would need to be in hand first.
8 Q. Okay. And you mentioned that when you went to Point
9 Pleasant Park, by the time Ms. Rogier removed Brindi from the car
10 she always had the muzzle on.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now did you observe if she had the muzzle on in the car?
13 A. Not always, because in heat, as you can appreciate, we were
14 working during the summer months, and even though it's a basket
15 muzzle, the only way a dog can exhaust its heat is by panting, there
16 is no other way for them to cool themselves down. And the air in
17 a car can be very humid, so within the car putting the muzzle on
18 sometimes is going to be a health risk. So arriving at the park,
19 she would always put the muzzle on and then open the doors.
20 Q. But sometimes in the car, the muzzle wouldn't be on.
21 A. Yeah, only because of a health factor. I mean, there is

335
SUSAN JORDAN, Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier
1 sort of, you know, there‟s a bit of a judgment call there where you
2 are compromising health ...
3 MS. SALSMAN: Okay. Sorry, I am just going to take a minute
4 to see if there is anything else. Okay, those are my questions, Thank
5 you, Your Honour.
6 THE COURT: Okay, any re-direct?

7
10 MS. ROGIER: Okay, I would just like to go back, just like
11 to reiterate, we also talked about when you arrived at Point Pleasant
12 Park, and you would transport Brindi. I just want to clarify when
13 I asked you whether ... when you took her in the car, and it was hot,
14 September or OctoberY
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Did she ... did you muzzle her usually?
17 A. Ah, the first couple of times I did, and then once she was
18 used to being in my vehicle and I had arranged, because I have a gating
19 system, and I also leash. So that she had airflow through and I would
20 muzzle her, and I would drop the gate from inside the vehicle and
21 then apply the muzzle and then I would open the tailgate and bring
336
1 her out that way?
2 Q. So the condition for muzzling that was about a confined
3 enclosure, would you consider a car a confined enclosure?
4 A. To safely transport her without a muzzle as long as she
5 was secured ...
6 Q. Well, without it, yeah.

7 A. ... within the vehicle, yeah.
8 Q. But is it confined in terms of the condition that you
9 understood in the report? Would a car meet the ...
10 A. Yeah, well, oh yeah. Well, and dogs consider their cars
11 very definitely their area.
12 Q. They are confined, so that ...
13 A. Yeah, no, no, no, its ...
14 Q. Okay, you used, again, you mentioned something about the
15 owners' reactions as you were answering before, I don't exactly
16 remember what context that was is, but you brought it into play in
17 the things that can happen that would be involving the dog's, or a
18 dog's reactions. The owner's reactions ...
19 A. Well, the owners exasperate ... exacerbate, I am sorry.
20 and exasperate sometimes, the dog's behaviour by our body language
21 and our communications with our dogs in training are crucial and the
337
1 aspects of how a human reacts. We have physical changes in our body,
2 we have facial changes in our body and these are triggers and signals
3 to our dogs. An owner becomes very scared and begins to elicit
4 pheromones that trigger anxiety or fear, will ... and our facial
5 expressions will provide cues to our dogs as to whether they feel
6 or not that there is cause for concern.

7 Q. Uh-huh.
8 A. So quite often, if two dogs get into an altercation for
9 example, and let me take a very harmless situation, two puppies in
10 a puppy social class are playing and one becomes a little rough, if
11 the owners jump in and panic and AOh Fluffy no, and don't do that,@
12 you can actually set the dogs off more because they sense their owners
13 anxiety as being problematic to the presence of the other puppy, not
14 their behaviour with the other puppy.
15 So when owners react with their dogs, it frequently can set off
16 a chain of events that they wouldn't have been involved whatsoever
17 if it had just been the dogs talking with one another in their canine
18 conversation.
19 Q. So from your viewpoint, as a trainer who can consult on
20 behaviour, would you agree that a dog could, from a dog‟s point of
21 view, be provoked by both dogs and humans?

338
1 A. Oh, it happens all the time.
2 Q. And not attack the humans, but just go after the dog.
3 A. Yeah, it happens all the time. We ... we have incidents
4 through Dog Gone Safe in Germany, for example, postmen who come on
5 a property and set a dog off through their body language. We have
6 situations where small dog owners pick their dogs up and hold them
7 above another dog, and in frustration that dog will appear to be
8 aggressive. We have what's called leash aggression, which is a false
9 aggression created by the owners and is very commonplace. Probably
10 I would say 30 percent or more of the work I do revolves around leash
11 aggression, which is completely predicated by the behaviour of the
12 human.
13 Q. Really.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Interesting. Okay, so you were satisfied about Brindi's
16 bite inhibition with regard to these other situations ... and we‟re
17 focusing ...
18 A. With regards to her behaviour with other dogs.
19 Q. Yeah, we were focusing on the property, but we hadn't quite
20 had the opportunity yet to do that, is that correct?
21 A. Correct.
339
DISCUSSION
1 Q. ... at the time this happened...
2 THE COURT: Okay, this is re-direct.
3 MS. ROGIER: That‟s just wrapping it up, yes. Your Honour,
4 I think that wraps it up for me. Thank you very very much.
5 THE COURT: Thanks so much for your appearance here today.
6 You are excused. Oh, yes, thank you. Okay, well, it's now 12:30
7 and we will adjourn until 1:30. Thanks very much.
9 WITNESS WITHDRAWS (TIME: 12:30 HRS)
10
13
14 DISCUSSION
15
16 THE COURT: Is there any further witnesses, Ms. Rogier?
17 MS. ROGIER: No, I don't have any witnesses, Your Honour. I

18 do have some submissions to make.
19 THE COURT: Did you want to, you are not, you don't wish to
20 take the stand. You certainly have the right to not do that, so I
21 just making sure you ...

340
DISCUSSION
1 MS. ROGIER: I think the thing is that, um, I am aware that
2 these are strict liability offences and I am aware of the standard
3 of proof, so I don't know that there is a need for that. I think
4 that we have gone above and beyond, but I think, you know, my concern
5 is the issues that I have raised already as far as the Charter ...
6 THE COURT: All right, well, that‟s up to you. I just

7 wanted to remind you, that ...
9 THE COURT: ... you have that opportunity.
10 MS. ROGIER: I don't believe so.
11 THE COURT: If you don't choose to do so, that's fine, so
12 I am just wondering if ... I know that there is defence testimony,
13 but I was wondering, Ms. Salsman, you‟d be good enough ... usually
14 when it's a self-represented person, I ask the Crown to sum up first,
15 if that's your preference. Or, would you like to sum up first.
16 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me. Can you just clarify now? We have
17 got to the end of the evidence.

18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 MS. ROGIER: So at this time ...
20 THE COURT: This time would be argument submissions.
21 MS. ROGIER: Was I correct in understanding that from the

341
DISCUSSION
1 first day that we had this that you talked about, that at the end
2 of the evidence that we could have the Charter arguments?
3 THE COURT: Well, remember I said if you wanted to put forth
4 those arguments in writing that you would be able to do so. I did
5 receive a brief, I am not sure, I think it touches on some of the
6 issues that you are concerned with, as well as the other materials
7 that I have received along the way. Ss I understand it, your concerns
8 are with respect to the warrant with respect to the ... the warrant,
9 I think perhaps the wording in the Act itself. And so if you don't
10 want ... if there is no more evidence at this point. It's for closing
11 submissions. If you wish to get into the Charter issues here, you
12 can. Or you can do it in writing.
13 MS. ROGIER: Well, um...
14 THE COURT: We have the afternoon now, so that‟s maybe ...
15 it's up to you.
16 MS. ROGIER: Okay. Then I would like to B
17 THE COURT: If you are you ready to go ahead now, then we

18 will proceed with hearing you.
19 MS. ROGIER: Right. I would like to recall Susan Jordan in
20 about an hour. She had to leave for a while, but if we are continuing,
21 and to speak on the Charter ...

342
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: No, I thought we had been finished with Ms.
2 Jordan.
3 MS. ROGIER: She was speaking on the trial, in terms of the
4 defence. But there was the Charter submissions, and she was there,
5 as I said earlier, to speak about the law and she is prepared to speak
6 about the arguments that I have.

7 THE COURT: Okay, well, I can tell you right now that she
8 is not qualified to speak about the actual law itself. I appreciate
9 that, that's why I see where you are going with respect to for
10 instance, in the Act, it says if an animal should bite. I think she
11 was given the descriptions of the range of biting and things of that
12 nature. That's what I understood you to maybe be going with her with
13 respect to why you are here to speak about the law but that would
14 not be appropriate.
15 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, with all due respect, seriously
16 with all ... and quite sincerely, quite frankly. A person of her
17 calibre who has such state-of-the-art knowledge about things such

18 as the words Aattack@, the words Aaggression@, the words Athreatens@,
19 I cannot reasonably think of a person that would be more qualified,
20 and if she is not qualified, how an Animal Services employee or any
21 other employee or official of HRM is more qualified.

343
DISCUSSION
1 So if there is issues with the law, they lie in the fact that
2 it is lacking this element of expertise from day one especially with
3 a three hundred ... and it was already necessary for me to go to the
4 Supreme Court unwillingly to get a clause struck. And, in fact,
5 there was more that had to be struck. I have confirmed this over
6 and over again with lawyers. And I feel that this is a very good
7 opportunity for both HRM and dog owners to get some of these things
8 out there and to clarify with respect to how offences are done and
9 how they are enforced.
10 THE COURT: Well, you can certainly argue that. You can
11 certainly argue that.
12 MS. ROGIER: So if she cannot speak. I am finding this a
13 very, very much a difficult thing to comprehend, frankly. And, as
14 I say, I say this with all due respect ...
15 THE COURT: She has ... she is not a lawyer. She has not
16 been qualified to give opinion, a legal opinion. She was qualified
17 to give expert testimony on dog training.

18 MS. ROGIER: Well, I would like to respond by saying that,
19 you know, it is very, very common when by-laws about dogs that do
20 engage in an area that is of some specialized knowledge to begin with,
21 that they also consult. And, they also often appoint them to be on
344
DISCUSSION
1 tribunes to assess dangerous dogs, as they do in Calgary and many
2 other cities. And it's very, very common that a judge, and I should
3 also say the last person that I was involved in, there was absolutely
4 no trouble with bringing in trainers to talk about the offences and
5 about the law. These issues have plagued this area and me personally
6 for some time. And I feel like ...

7 THE COURT: Well, as I said, you can argue before me, but
8 what I have just said is that Ms. Jordan has not been qualified in
9 this area of the law or in the law in general and we are not going
10 to be calling her back. There is no reason for it.
11 MS. ROGIER: So the submission that she did make that you
12 reviewed. You are saying that after the document that was ...
13 THE COURT: Well, I'll make that decision when I put my mind
14 to the whole of the evidence before me and when I hear your arguments.
15 Now do you wish to proceed first with your closing arguments?
16 MS. ROGIER: I would at like time to be able to organize these
17 papers but I would like to speak about the trial. I cannot go on

18 without the Charter arguments without ...
19 THE COURT: We are finishing up this matter today, Madam.
20 MS. ROGIER: Yes, I understand.
21 THE COURT: We have already taken the fourth day of court

345
DISCUSSION
1 time, albeit two days back in November that you were unable to be
2 here. But this matter has to get concluded.
3 MS. ROGIER: As you know, this issue of November is very
4 troubling to me. I have a ... I had medical grounds for that.
5 THE COURT: No, I don't want to get into that now.
6 MS. ROGIER: Honestly.

7 THE COURT: What I want to know now, are you going to proceed
8 with your argument or shall we hear from Ms. Salsman first?
9 Generally we would hear from Defence first, but I am just giving you
10 the opportunity to hear from Crown first because you are
11 self-represented.
12 MS. ROGIER: And after that?
13 THE COURT: And after that you will respond.
14 MS. ROGIER: And after that would be a judgment?
15 THE COURT: Well, I am not going to give a judgment today.
16 MS. ROGIER: And the motion to exclude, will you rule on the
17 motion to exclude?
18 THE COURT: I will deal with all of that in my decision. I
19 will deal with all the issues that you have raised in my decision
20 piece by piece.
21 MS. ROGIER: I would like the Crown to go ahead then, I guess.

346
DISCUSSION
1 And I ...
2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, so please be seated and
3 we‟ll hear from the Crown.
4 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, just ... sorry to clarify, should
5 I only be summing up then on the basis of the trial? The Charter
6 issues, the factum which I receive from Ms. Rogier on Wednesday was
7 quite extensive, and ...
8 THE COURT: Well, I did offer the other date that we could
9 proceed by way of written submissions.
10 MS. SALSMAN: And I think that would be my preference.
11 THE COURT: Okay, that might be easier, for Ms. Rogier, as
12 well, to get that from the Crown in response to what you have provided
13 and then you would have the ability to rebut.
14 MS. ROGIER: At a later ...
15 THE COURT: In writing. And we will get to the dates as to
16 when those will be submitted at the end of the arguments.
17 MS. SALSMAN: And, as to the motion to exclude, I could perhaps

18 put that in the written arguments as well.
19 THE COURT: Absolutely, yes.
20 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, great. So today, Your Honour, my
21 submissions will really be limited to the actual charges and whether

347
DISCUSSION
1 the Crown is seeking a conviction on those counts.
4 SUBMISSION BY MS. SALSMAN
6 MS. SALSMAN: And we advise that we are. I will start just

7 by reviewing the evidence. I don't believe any of it was
8 particularly complex or difficult to understand.
9 Our first witness was Tyson Simms. He essentially testified
10 to what happened on the night of September 14, 2010. He testified
11 that he was walking his dog that night, his dog Lucy. His dog Lucy
12 was on a leash. He was walking along the road, on the Chezzetcook
13 Road and at that point when he came in front of the residence where
14 Ms. Rogier lives, a dog jumped out of the window of a car that was
15 just pulling up into the driveway of that residence. And that that
16 dog, which did not have a muzzle on or any leash on it, attacked his
17 dog, Lucy.
18 What he described was the two dogs essentially going in circles
19 on the pavement in front of him. That Brindi was on top of Lucy to
20 the point where he really couldn't see Lucy very clearly anymore and
21 Brindi was completely covering her. And he testified that he and

348
SUBMISSION BY MS. SALSMAN
1 his wife were both yelling and kicking at Brindi and that Brindi
2 didn't disengage immediately until sometime later when Brindi did
3 break off and he wasn't entirely sure what caused Brindi to break
4 off since he was more focused on his dog.
5 He testified that he took his ... that his dog ran down the
6 street. He followed after Lucy and looked at Lucy under the

7 streetlight and wasn't able to immediately see any injuries, that
8 there was an exchange between he and his wife and Ms. Rogier and after
9 that he went to the residence of his parents-in-law where he took
10 a closer look at Lucy and was able to see that there were two abrasions
11 and a puncture wound, which his wife then took some photographs of.
12 He testified that then he filed a complaint with Animal Control the
13 next morning about what had happened that day.
14 The next witness for the Crown was Katie Simms. I believe that
15 her evidence was very much in agreement with that of her husband.
16 She testified to the same basic events happening that night. That
17 they were walking along the road, and the dog, that she personally
18 was able to recognize as Brindi, came jumping out of the window of
19 the car that had pulled up in front of her. The woman that came out
20 of the car that night, Ms. Simms also was familiar with, she said
21 partly from the media coverage that had surrounded previous incidents
349
1 with that dog, but also partly because she had given Ms. Rogier a
2 jump on her car some years before.
3 So she was able to recognize Ms. Rogier as a person that had
4 the dog with her that day, and she was also able to recognize the
5 dog that was with Ms. Rogier as Brindi. Her testimony was overall
6 consistent with Mr. Simms in terms of what happened that Brindi jumped
7 on top of Lucy. That Lucy then suffered some puncture wounds which
8 she took some pictures of.
9 Ms. Simms went without her husband the next morning to the
10 veterinary hospital to have Lucy checked up and the veterinarian
11 there did confirm that there was a puncture wound, as well as two
12 other abrasions, and they were given some basic care and some
13 antibiotics in case that there was a later infection and sent home.
14 Now, Ms. Simms also offered up as Exhibits 1 and 2 photographs of
15 the injuries that occurred.
16 Now our next witness was Ms. Steen. Essentially her testimony
17 was not very extensive in and of itself, but she was primarily there
18 to introduce the recorded phone calls that she had taken from Ms.
19 Rogier on that night. Now I am not go into too much detail about
20 the admissibility of those calls, but the contents of the calls, I
21 think, more or less spoke for themselves.

350
1 Ms. Rogier called that evening very upset and immediately
2 described the situation to Ms. Steen of what had happened that night.
3 She confirmed the things that Ms. Rogier said in the phone call that
4 day, essentially confirmed that the events happened more or less as
5 Mr. and Mrs. Simms both pointed out. That Brindi was in the back
6 seat, that they pulled up into the driveway and that Brindi then
7 jumped out of the car window and went at this other dog essentially.
8 On page 3 of the first transcript is when Ms. Rogier really
9 describes what happened on that day. As she says in her own words,
10 AShe jumped out the window, and she started to fight with this dog.
11 And I jumped out and separated them and the dog is fine.@
12 So essentially Ms. Rogier confirmed when speaking with Ms. Steen
13 that her dog Brindi had been involved in fighting or attacking this
14 other dog on the road in front of her home. She describes that the
15 Steens (sic) were walking along the road in front of their house,
16 and that the dog was not loose, it was being walked.
17 Now, Ms. Rogier is a little cute about whether or not Brindi

18 was actually on a ...
19 MS. ROGIER: Objection, Your Honour.
20 THE COURT: No, you may respond in your closing arguments,
21 of course.
351
1 MS. ROGIER: Okay, thank you.
2 MS. SALSMAN: A better word is she is not explicit about
3 whether Brindi was wearing a muzzle or not that night. On page 7
4 when Ms. Steen asks her, “Was Brindi wearing a muzzle?” Ms. Rogier
5 says AYes.@ And when the operator says, AShe did,@ she says AWell,
6 I am going to say yes,@ which I think, clarifies somewhat what she

7 meant by that day.
8 And I think that she clarified that more moving down to line
9 12 when she says, AYou know, this is a, you know, in and out of the
10 car, in and out of the car all day long. Muzzle on, muzzle off.
11 Muzzle on, muzzle off, you know.@ So that seems to illustrate the
12 fact that as Ms. Rogier was coming in and out of the car she was taking
13 the muzzle on and off the dog. She didn't have the muzzle
14 consistently on, which would make some sense then, for why the Simms
15 described that when Brindi came jumping out of the car, Brindi didn't
16 have a muzzle on at that time.
17 And then Ms. Rogier later called back that evening. She filed
18 a statement of what she said happened but I think it's fair to say
19 that the second statement is very different than the initial story
20 that she was giving. But I think that Your Honour would agree that
21 her initial statement that she first said to Ms. Steen has a much
352
1 more truthful ring to it in terms of what had actually happened on
2 that evening, and I suggest that Your Honour would accept that.
3 Now, Cst. Mews was the next witness for the Crown. She,
4 herself, didn't witness the tussle. Her evidence was quite brief.
5 Essentially, she witnessed the injuries afterwards. She suggested
6 to the Simms that they may want to take photographs of those injuries,
7 which the Simms then did.
8 Now Officer Rodger also only became involved in the incident
9 after it had already occurred. She didn‟t personally witness the
10 events of that day. But she did ... but she was able to provide some
11 testimony with regards to the orders that are currently in place with
12 regards to Brindi.
13 There is the muzzle order, which was originally issued in 2008,
14 which has been introduced as Exhibit 5, and that Notice to Muzzle.
15 requires that Brindi be muzzled at all times when outside. Now the
16 exact wording is pursuant to s. 8(2)(a), ABrindi is hereby required
17 to be muzzled at all times when outside.@ And then it clarifies what

18 a muzzle is.
19 Now it could be arguable whether or not being inside the car
20 would be considered outside or not. The Crown's position would be
21 that unless it's actually in a building, then the dog would be

353
1 considered outside. But then what I think is significant is this
2 muzzle order was essentially further amended when Ms. Rogier was
3 charged with having a dog that attacks a person or animal and a dog
4 that runs at large, and was violating a muzzle order.
5 And in that time, she was found guilty by Judge Murphy of this
6 court and Judge Murphy chose to impose additional conditions on

7 Brindi before choosing to return Brindi to the care of Ms. Rogier
8 and introduced as Exhibit C for the transcript of the Order that Judge
9 Murphy made that evening. And, at page 18
10 THE COURT: That is Exhibit C? I don't have it in front of
11 me. Thanks very much.
12 MS. SALSMAN: Or actually it more probably starts at page 17
13 of that decision. Judge Murphy ordered that:
14 AMs. Rogier will keep the dog Brindi
15 securely restrained, either indoors, or when
16 Brindi is outdoors, she shall be muzzled at all
17 times and inside an escape-proof enclosure that

18 does not allow the dog, to jump, climb, or dig
19 its way out, while it is on the property of its
20 owner. And, the enclosure is to be approved by
21 Animal Services for Halifax Regional

354
1 Municipality, or person designated by them.@
2 And, Her Honour Judge Murphy goes on to say,
3 Aor when Brindi is outside the residence, and not
4 in the escape-proof enclosure.@
5 And she says Athe escape-proof enclosure@ which seems to be
6 referring to the one that Ms. Rogier would have on her property.
7 AThat the dog, Brindi, shall be muzzled at all times, securely
8 leashed and Ms. Rogier shall ensure that the dog, Brindi, is under
9 the control of a person, not under the age of 18 years of age who
10 has experience and proven ability to control Brindi when the dog is
11 outside the residence of the owner.@
12 So, I think, Your Honour, that Judge Murphy was making it very
13 clear that at all times when Brindi is outside the residence of her
14 owner, that dog should be muzzled, unless it's in the escape-proof
15 enclosure that Ms. Rogier has made on her property.
16 Now the defence evidence consisted only of the testimony of
17 Susan Jordan, who is a trainer. She provided some opinions regarding

18 the character and the trainability of Brindi, which I don't think
19 are truly relevant to the trial. But she did provide some
20 information, I think, which does shed some light. First of all, that
21 Ms. Rogier had called her that evening and provided a story of what
355
1 had happened on the day of the attack of September 14, 2010, which
2 again, more or less accords with that that is presented by the Simms.
3 There is some slight variations in that she thought that maybe Ms.
4 Rogier had indicated that the other dog was not on a leash.
5 But I don't believe that there is any reason to believe that
6 that was actually the case. And, she also noted from what Ms. Rogier
7 had told her that day, is she had gathered that essentially Brindi
8 had been involved in another incident of territorial aggression. So
9 I think that her evidence again, supports the evidence of the Simms,
10 that Brindi had, on September 14th again, come out and attacked the
11 dog that was walking by the property of Ms. Rogier.
12 Now there are three charges before the Court today. The first
13 charge is of owning a dog that runs at large. The second of owning
14 a dog that attacks an animal. And the third of failing to comply
15 with a notice to muzzle a dog.
16 Now I think that the most straightforward is the attack charge,
17 in a sense. The evidence is quite clear that Brindi jumped out of

18 the window. That she ran directly to the dog Lucy, and latched on
19 and wouldn't let go. And essentially by doing so, she ended up
20 causing puncture wounds or a puncture wound, as well as some abrasions
21 on the back of Lucy. This seems like it would be a textbook case

356
1 of what you could consider an attack.
2 The Simms also described that Brindi was growling as she was
3 doing this. That Lucy was yipping and seemed afraid and that all
4 in all Brindi's characteristics seemed to be threatening and
5 aggressive.
6 And by doing this, I think, Your Honour, it is very clear that

7 there was an attack on that evening. And, likewise, I think it's
8 clear that the dog that perpetrated that attack is the dog that
9 belongs to Ms. Rogier.
10 The dog was with Ms. Rogier on that evening, so it was therefore
11 in Ms. Rogier's care and control under the definition of the by-law,
12 the definitions in the by-law, and further, this was a dog, Brindi,
13 that Ms. Simms has recognized as being the dog that belongs to Ms.
14 Rogier. And I think that that is not really an issue that is in
15 dispute.
16 The second charge of running at large. Now it's clear for one
17 thing that Brindi was not on a leash and was able to take a run at
18 the dog that belongs to the Simms. And Mr. Simms noted on both
19 cross-examination and on direct that he specifically recalled that
20 when the incident took place, they were on the pavement. This, I
21 think, Your Honour, establishes that they weren't, in fact, on the

357
1 property of Ms. Rogier. This dog was running at large. It was into
2 the road and essentially posed a threat to the public safety by
3 bringing these people into the road in that case.
4 And they also noted that previously they had been walking on
5 the gravel, which Mr. Simms identified as part of the right of way.
6 So again, not a part of Ms. Rogier‟s property. So it seems that the

7 whole incident took place certainly near Ms. Rogier‟s property, that
8 is not disputed, but off of it at that time. Brindi had made the
9 run off of Ms. Rogier‟s property.
10 Now the last charge of the muzzle order, with regards to the
11 muzzle order. Now the initial muzzle order says that Athe dog shall
12 be muzzled at all times when outside.@ Now, as I said, whether or
13 not in a car would be considered outside, I would submit that it is.
14 But what's more significant is the fact of course, that the dog then
15 jumped outside the car and was clearly outside at that point. So
16 at the time that the attacks took place, Brindi was outside without
17 her muzzle on. But I would also suggest that when the term Aoutside@
18 is being used, that suggests that the dog is no longer in a home,
19 it‟s no longer inside. I don't think that you would consider being
20 in a car inside, so I would suggest that there was a violation in
21 that regard.
358
1 And then as I already covered earlier, I believe that the order
2 of Judge Murphy then makes it further clear that Brindi is supposed
3 to be muzzled at all times when not inside the residence of the owner.
4 And, at this point, both when in the car, and when Brindi left the
5 car, the dog was not in the residence of the owner.
6 And yet it still ... it seems to be the evidence of Ms. Jordan,

7 at least, is that it was quite common for Ms. Rogier to have Brindi
8 in her car without a muzzle on and it seems that that night that was
9 what was happening as well.
10 So, Your Honour, I would suggest that the elements of the offence
11 have been very clearly made out for all three of these. The only
12 remaining question would be if there any defence available to Ms.
13 Rogier. And, I don't ... Ms. Rogier hasn't testified herself, so
14 it's not clear if ... whether she intends to raise the defence of
15 due diligence, but the Crown would submit that that defence has not
16 been made out in these circumstances.
17 Now we don't deny that it wasn't intentional. But the question,

18 of course, is on any strict issue of liability, is whether Ms. Rogier
19 did everything that she reasonably could have done to prevent the
20 commission of these three offences.
21 Now the first ... so I think we have to consider, Your Honour,

359
1 what things Ms. Rogier could have done to prevent the offence on that
2 night. And there is one very clear and obvious thing that Ms. Rogier
3 could have done that would have prevented all of these circumstances
4 from ever coming to the head that they have come to today, which would
5 be to keep Brindi always in her muzzle when she is outside of her
6 residence, as she was ordered to. By not doing so, this meant that
7 when Brindi jumped out of the car and made a run to Lucy, at that
8 point she was able to bite on Lucy and essentially perpetrate an
9 attack in such a way that she wouldn't have been able to if she was
10 wearing her muzzle. And, obviously, if Brindi had been wearing a
11 muzzle, then that also would have prevented her from violating the
12 muzzle order.
13 Now the second thing that Ms. Rogier could have done would have
14 been to keep the window of her car closed while driving, especially
15 once they came close to their property. Ms. Rogier was very aware,
16 from the testimony of Ms. Jordan, that her dog had issues of
17 territorial aggression. So she should have been, at the very least,

18 cautious about ensuring that that dog was not going to come loose
19 when it was near the borders of her property.
20 And, in general, having a dog that has any sort of issues like
21 this, or any dog at all, you should be ensuring that your windows
360
1 are either closed all the way, or only cracked so much that that dog
2 could not get out of the window. It is irresponsible dog ownership
3 to allow your dog to jump out, not simply because it can end up
4 injuring another dog, as it did in this case, but even just for the
5 safety of your own dog.
6 So, Your Honour, I would submit that that is another thing that
7 Ms. Rogier could have done that she did not do, which was to ensure
8 that her dog could not escape from her car. And I think that any
9 defence of due diligence really needs to be taken in the context of
10 Ms. Rogier and Brindi's past history. This isn't a case where Ms.
11 Rogier had no idea that her dog would have had any tendency towards
12 this. There is a prolonged history between Ms. Rogier and Animal
13 Control and with this dog. She is very, very much aware that Brindi
14 had a tendency to attack other dogs, especially on her property.
15 So as a reasonable dog owner, she should have been extremely
16 cautious and extremely careful that her dog was always muzzled and
17 was not going to be able to get loose to make it to another dog. And
18 that's a responsibility that unfortunately she let fall that day.
19 So to sum up, Your Honour, the Crown is seeking a conviction
20 on all three counts. I think that the facts have clearly established
21 that Ms. Rogier was guilty of owning a dog that ran at large, of owning
361
DISCUSSION
1 a dog that attacked another animal, and of failing to comply with
2 a Notice to Muzzle the dog. And I don‟t believe that there has been
3 any defence made out on the facts of the case today. So unless Your
4 Honour has any questions, those would be my submissions.
6 DISCUSSION
7
8 THE COURT: Thank you so much.
9 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, can I ... I mentioned this earlier,
10 I have submissions in the form of papers and statements and I had
11 been preparing to submit them, am I able to do this at this time?
12 THE COURT: If you wish, I don't know what they are. I don't
13 know whether you want to do it now, or do it by way of along with
14 your written submissions on the Charter.
15 MS. ROGIER: I can identify for you, one is a photograph of
16 my property which goes to the Simm's statements. There is an
17 affidavit from the vet, through her assessment of Brindi. There are
18 some ...
19 THE COURT: The affidavit hasn't been ... that's not formed
20 a part of the evidence you see.
21 MS. ROGIER: The Crown has had the affidavit for some time.
362
DISCUSSION
1 I do have copies here.
2 MS. SALSMAN: We do have the affidavit, Your Honour. I wasn't
3 sure ... I had told Ms. Rogier that if she wished to introduce it,
4 I was going to seek to have Ms. Larkin or Dr. Larkin present to
5 cross-examine her.
6 MS. ROGIER: I had announced that a long time ago, that was
7 made very clear that the affidavit would ...
8 THE COURT: But it would have been up to you to have had the
9 doctor appear. In any event, I can take that into account when I
10 am making my decision.
11 MS. ROGIER: Okay, Your Honour. Please excuse me for not
12 having it all filed up for you, but you have to understand. There
13 is a great deal of material here. This has been going on for a very
14 long time, as the Crown has said. And, if it really would benefit
15 my case, I don't know. I actually am at a loss to tell whether or
16 not if I testify it will make a difference. Because I know very
17 well ...
18 THE COURT: Well, we have gone past that stage now, Ms.
19 Rogier, now we are into closing submissions.
20 MS. ROGIER: Because I am happy to speak to things that regard
21 the incident in question, and I can offer counter arguments towards

363
DISCUSSION
1 the Crown's assertions about due diligence and I think our testimony
2 that we heard today, also does that. We have heard that a person
3 who has a long-standing role as a trainer, and also is very, very
4 educated on dog health, as I may say so, is of the opinion that it
5 is unhealthy to continue to muzzle a dog in a car, especially during
6 the hot months, that they need some form of air, as well.
7 I think it's been said in this testimony from Michelle Steen
8 that the car was brand new to me, that day. In fact I had only had
9 it for a few hours. And, as such, in terms of due diligence, one
10 of the most frustrating and terrible things I have to live with, as
11 someone who is pretty good with mechanical equipment and technical
12 things, I did go to engineering school, is that the door, the handles,
13 the window control on this vehicle are so different from the one that
14 I had been previously been driving, and I had simply been of the
15 persuasion that I had cracked the window about an inch. I have a
16 letter here, Your Honour ...
17 THE COURT: Now you are giving testimony, which is notY

18 MS. ROGIER: Well, then, I would like to give testimony, Your
19 Honour, because I think this has been handled in a way that things
20 are done in different sequence..
21 THE COURT: Well, you said you didn‟t. Then you said you
364
DISCUSSION
1 did. Then you said you did ... Well okay, let's back up, I‟m looking
2 at Ms. Salsman.
3 MS. ROGIER: Okay, that's fine.
4 THE COURT: Now, do you want to take ... now this is your
5 last opportunity. Do you want to give ...
6 MS. ROGIER: I'll take the stand. I‟ll be happy to take the
7 stand.
8 THE COURT: All right, let's get you sworn in then and take
9 the stand.
10 MS. ROGIER: And, beyond that I do have ...
11 THE COURT: No, we are stopping here. Do you want to take
12 the stand? If you are going to do it, you are going to do it now.
13 MS. ROGIER: Yes.
14 THE COURT: We are already proceeding on a very unusual
15 basis to do it this way, because I gave you the opportunity to do
16 it beforehand. I don't know if there is any objection from the Crown.
17 MS. ROGIER: I would like to briefly, just briefly do this,

18 take the stand. Not any longer than absolutely required.
19 THE COURT: Well, take the stand now, then.
20 MS. ROGIER: Well, I can't introduce evidence while I am on
21 stand, then.
365
1 THE COURT: Well you can bring with you what matter you may
2 wish to have introduced, certainly.
4 FRANCESCA ROGIER, affirmed, testified:
6 THE CLERK: State your name and spell your last name for the
7 record, please.
8 MS. ROGIER: My name is Francesca Rogier. My last name is
9 R-O-G-I-E-R.
11
12 DIRECT EVIDENCE
13
14 MS. ROGIER: I adopted Brindi in 2007. She had been in a no
15 kill shelter for two years. My intention ...
16 THE COURT: She had been in, where?
17 MS. ROGIER: A no-kill shelter. She was four years old.

18 She had been in a shelter for two years. She was very loved by ...
19 THE COURT: I am sorry, you are going a little fast. So you
20 adopted her when?
21 MS. ROGIER: In 2007, in June.

366
FRANCESCA ROGIER, Direct Evidence
1 THE COURT: In 2007 and she was 4 years old.
2 MS. ROGIER: And I proceeded, after a few weeks I had her with
3 me. I took an obedience class with Bob Ottenbrite, a very highly
4 regarded trainer. We completed that in nine weeks, it was an
5 eight-week course. Out of the ten that started the class with us,
6 we were among only three that finished after nine weeks. And Brindi
7 did very well. Animal Services people when they first came to my
8 home, after a report by Bonnie Pettipas that there had been an attack,
9 were satisfied by knowing that this had been done. I showed them
10 the certificates, so they gave a warning. They understood also
11 that at that incident there was no injury. It had lasted very
12 briefly. That I had the dog under control ...
13 THE COURT: So what year, when was this?
14 MS. ROGIER: Two thousand, in fact, the odd thing was it was
15 very shortly after. It was August, I believe …
16 THE COURT: August of ...
17 MS. ROGIER: 2007. And ...

18 THE COURT: And they gave you a warning about what?
19 MS. ROGIER: They gave me a warning about, you know it wasn't
20 very specific to tell you the truth. And, I understood it as a
21 warning. I took great pains to consult the trainers that I had worked
367
1 with. They explained it away as just a fluke. They knew Brindi,
2 they knew that she had successfully completed obedience and that she
3 was able to be controlled off leash to the point where she could stay
4 in the middle of a space, I could walk around. I could leave, I could
5 come back and she would remain following the commands, and so on.
6 I was able to train her to move from my kitchen to the upstairs

7 rooms just by simply saying “go upstairs”, “come down”, so on. She
8 was very good off leash, but she did exhibit this very odd streak,
9 which was out of character with her otherwise very obedient nature.
10 And, Your Honour, I am sorry that I don't have the means to produce
11 for you, and I would so much like to, every letter and affidavit that
12 I was able to obtain within the space of ten days after Brindi was
13 seized. And these were from people that I didn't know personally
14 that well. But they had been familiar with my dog. And they
15 included ...
16 THE COURT: But, let me just say that, that is not evidence
17 in court.
18 MS. ROGIER: It's not evidence, that's true. But ...
19 THE COURT: Just so you know I can‟t consider that, all
20 right.
21 MS. ROGIER: I was satisfied at the time that this was ...
368
1 it was an unusual thing. And I consulted trainers throughout for
2 advice about what to do and so on. So from every minute that I had
3 her I took responsibility for having her licensed, having her spayed,
4 having her shots and having her trained. And I worked very
5 diligently and I put off working on my house, which I had a project
6 for a foundation, for a year in order to take time to train my dog.

7 In the following spring and summer, my house was under this
8 construction work. It was lifted up on piers. The contractor
9 proved to be very bad, and it was a great disappointment that he wasn't
10 finished by July. He left the house up on ramps, with ramps
11 connecting to the ground, and that is when this incident occurs that
12 lead to her seizure.
13 In the intervening time there was an incident with a dog, also
14 at the edge of the property. In front of my home, with a dog named
15 Flower, who had, I didn't recall immediately but I, I had a friend
16 that I remembered later that we were in another location just weeks
17 earlier off my property with Brindi on a leash and that dog had been
18 aggressive to Brindi and lunged and barked at her, where Brindi kept
19 obeying my commands.
20 Somehow when Brindi was on a rare moment, off leash in my house,
21 we were actually on our way into the house, she spotted the dog being
369
1 walked in front of our house, and she went, and she disobeyed my Astay@
2 command and she went after that dog. But, I have to say within
3 seconds I intervened. I got her under control. I saw to it that
4 the other dog was taken care of, and I offered that if they wanted
5 to, to go see the vet and I would cover the costs. I was happy to
6 do that and I felt very terrible that this had happened, so I

7 apologized. And, I consulted a trainer again.
8 THE COURT: So, from that, so was that the ...
9 MS. ROGIER: 2008.
10 THE COURT: Okay. So that was when the muzzle order was ...
11 MS. ROGIER: Yes, ma'am.
12 THE COURT: ... place for this dog Flowers.
13 MS. ROGIER: This was in April, April 2008, and the woman who
14 owned the dog said to me ...
15 THE COURT: That's hearsay. That's fine, so I just need to
16 know so, April 2008, a muzzle order.
17 MS. ROGIER: Can I, can I, may I say simply that it was ...
18 I became aware that there were some rumours going around about my
19 dog at the time. I didn't know anything about them, really. But
20 I was informed by Officer Tim Hamm, who was the Animal Services
21 Officer at the time, he is no longer an employee of HRM. He came

370
1 and spoke to me for long time about Brindi. He observed me with
2 Brindi.
3 At no time, in fact, Your Honour, has an Animal Services Officer
4 ever seen Brindi be anything but obedient, in my company at least,
5 I can vouch for that. He said nothing at first. He just talked in
6 general about dogs, about other things. As he was leaving he uttered

7 the words that he might have to fine me. So that was a little bit
8 distressing to me because I knew that the fines were hundreds of
9 dollars. And then I learned that he had contacted the other owner.
10 But within a week or two he returned with a muzzle order.
11 So I had no indication ... the incident had resulted in a
12 puncture would, but a very small one to the chest of the dog, in the
13 fleshy area of the chest. The dog responded immediately to
14 obedience, and this other dog sat down for me. She licked my hand.
15 She let me touch her all over her body. She seemed to be very good,
16 so it was a shock to me to get a muzzle order.
17 And, nevertheless, you know, I tried to offer other

18 alternatives, like a fence around, to construct around my house, even
19 though it would be very difficult during construction. And I was
20 simply told that‟s that, so this is in May. And then several months
21 later, I think, it was May, June, July, again, in the early morning
371
1 and this is when I speak about the ramps to my house. In the morning
2 when I attempted to tie her out briefly, because normally I would
3 walk her myself every day for about 30 ... 40 minutes and we would
4 walk mostly in places where there was no one around.
5 And I actually wish that I had brought in ... I could bring you
6 photographs so that you could know and I could show that this is a
7 community that has some housing but is actually very, very wide open
8 and there is lots of open space, and those are the places that I seek
9 out where I walk my dog. And most of the time we see nobody.
10 But, in this one moment, things didn't work out and she slipped
11 away from me and she ran to the front of my property where she sensed
12 that dogs were walking along with a gentleman. This was David Shea,
13 and this was on July 20, 2008. He was visiting for the weekend. I
14 didn't know him. I was familiar with most of the people at that time.
15 He held his dog, but I ran right after Brindi, and the things
16 that I saw that day were that instantly when Brindi reached the
17 property line, this man started kicking her. I never witnessed her
18 actually attacking the dog. The dog was never taken to a vet and
19 the owner, well, David Shea changed a little bit of the story, but
20 there was no proof at the subsequent trial a year or so later that
21 there was an injury to the dog. That was July 20th that this happened,
372
1 about 9:30 in the morning. At the time that he began kicking, a
2 gentleman drove up the road and honked his horn and he had seen the
3 whole thing and after he honked Brindi instantly just ran away from
4 the man, ran around the car, and right back towards my house.
5 THE COURT: So as a result of that incident what happened?
6 MS. ROGIER: Well, four days later, I was not notified that
7 there had been a report, but there was a report. Four days later
8 two Animal Services men appeared at my door. They had a Warrant to
9 Seize, and they had a Euthanasia Order that was set for August 14,
10 I believe. And they simply said that they were taking her.
11 I had read the law, and I didn't find in the law anything more
12 than, and believe me this was not an intentional muzzle order
13 violation, that ... but nevertheless the law says that in the event
14 of a muzzle order violation, the owner can be guilty of an offence.
15 And offences carry fines. I found no indication that a muzzle order
16 violation would be penalized by having a dog seized and killed
17 immediately, without any review, without any consultation, with a

18 vet or a trainer and without any opportunity for input from the owner
19 or even a consideration. Because, in fact, I had not even been part
20 of an investigation.
21 THE COURT: So just, so the dog was actually, Brindi, was

373
1 seized at that point in time?
2 MS. ROGIER: She was seized four says later, ma‟am, and she
3 was ... and I was ....
4 THE COURT: All right. And then you made an application to
5 Supreme Court with respect to the ...
6 MS. ROGIER: Eventually. I tried many things first.

7 THE COURT: ... the euthanasia.
8 MS. ROGIER: Yes. The first thing I did was ...
9 THE COURT: Okay, all right. I don't think we need to go
10 through all that.
11 MS. ROGIER: All right, well, in ...
12 THE COURT: So I am just trying to understand just the flow
13 of things, so that was I think that part of the Act was struck or
14 that part of their ...
15 MS. ROGIER: The part of the Act was s. 8(2)(d) and it was,
16 there were originally four things that an Animal Control Officer may
17 do if he believes a dog has attacked, I believe it‟s ... or I don‟t

18 know if it‟s dangerous or has attacked, but we have that with us here.
19 THE COURT: All right. So what happened after that. So
20 you were successful there.
21 MS. ROGIER: After that, I tried other recourses. I did not

374
1 have an intention ... I had no expectation that I would have to go
2 to court. I provided documentation from vets, kennel owners, and
3 the neighbourhood and petitions and people that really knew my dog.
4 Because I tried very hard to socialize her provided very very
5 reliable ...
6 THE COURT: So this was after the Supreme Court decision ...
7 MS. ROGIER: No, no, this is before that.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Now just let ... we got to move on here,
9 after the Supreme Court decision, I just need to know Brindi was
10 continued to be in the custody of the ...
11 MS. ROGIER: Held ...
12 THE COURT: In the pound. Okay, and then what happened
13 after that?
14 MS. ROGIER: The Supreme Court decision resulted in quashing
15 the Order to euthanize the section of the law. It was ... The
16 request, the remedy that we asked for, to return my dog, was not
17 addressed. There was no “yes” or “no” answer about that in the

18 judgment. It was the goal of the proceeding.
19 The City maintained that she was dangerous, continuing ...
20 despite that we had had a professional assessment, a very thorough
21 one done by court order while she was at the pound. It was ignored.
375
1 It was very positive. So she continued ...
2 THE COURT: So she was in the pound until such time as the
3 matter went through the court system here and the decision was made
4 by Her Honour Judge Murphy.
5 MS. ROGIER: Yes. I was, Your Honour, may I point out, I was
6 not charged with an offence the day that they took her. They did
7 not charge me until January 19, 2009.
8 THE COURT: So that's all ... there‟s nothing ... that‟s all
9 prior to what we are about to hear to date. But just to get the
10 history. So then, so the dog was still, and until Judge Murphy's
11 Order which we have heard a bit, read into the record here a bit,
12 that the dog was then released back into your, although you were found
13 guilty of the matters before the court, that the dog was released
14 under certain conditions by Judge Murphy, right?
15 MS. ROGIER: Well, I think, I have taken great pains to point
16 out, Your Honour, that this is an unusual application of the law.
17 And, in fact, there isn't a law applied here to hold a dog against,
18 you know, just to continue to hold a dog before any charges are laid
19 for six months. And then to continue for 18 months more while a
20 matter is being heard before the courts. It's exceptional in the
21 history of HRM prosecution. It is not commonly done. You can't

376
1 fairly say at all that it's done, not even remotely. And that is
2 the issue. I don't believe that anyone can fairly come to a
3 determination in their own minds, at least, without factoring in the
4 long-term detention of my dog, and the attempts that I have made to
5 get her returned to me were extensive.
6 THE COURT: Did you make an application to any court with

7 respect to ...
8 MS. ROGIER: Yes, ma'am. We tried ... I tried to, actually
9 go to, very, very difficult to, the lawyers I consulted were unclear
10 about the law. The City was uncooperative to clarify what authority
11 they had to continue to detain her. They gave various answers. I
12 applied through a lawyer to go before the court September 29, I
13 believe in 2009 and the matter was put off by an ex parte application
14 at the last second and was not clarified during the trial, which was
15 in late October.
16 So the trial carried on through the year into the early part
17 of 2010. My lawyer has also submitted an Abuse of Process

18 Application. It was heard parallel to the defending ... to the
19 defence which was very difficult, and I found it necessary to begin
20 representing myself at that point, partly because of costs, and
21 partly because my lawyer was ... he just proved unable to continue

377
1 with it and was willing, you know, to continue partly, but was unable
2 really. He was called away. So that was the spring.
3 Now, in February of 2010, Judge Murphy reached guilty verdicts.
4 The three guilty verdicts with the same charges we‟re on now. And,
5 there was extensive testimony. There was extensive evidence,
6 including, as I say, plenty of documentation. I had a second

7 assessment done.
8 Now this is when Brindi had been isolated from other dogs for
9 something like eighteen months at that point, and did very, very well.
10 Extremely well, I was amazed actually. And part of it may be because
11 she is seasoned in a kennel environment, but part of it is just that
12 she is a friendly and willing to please dog, period. So that was
13 factored in and I had, the ruling came down sometime mid-February,
14 2009, as I say.
15 And, the sentencing was held off pending a hearing on
16 sentencing. Then there was more time between that and the actual
17 sentencing, which came April 30, that‟s when Judge Murphy ... Now,
18 it was not my understanding at the time, and I have read the document,
19 that this constituted a separate muzzle order, or even an amended
20 muzzle order. I had discussed with Judge Murphy the wording of it,
21 actually, and was planning to go back before her when we went with
378
1 the trainer to clarify, and I know that I had discussed it with her
2 during the trial, that she had had an earlier ruling that she made
3 on another dog that had a muzzle order, where the owner returned after
4 training and submitted a request to be able to not muzzle his own
5 dog on his property, which she quickly agreed to. There was no long
6 proceeding about it. This dog had attacked a person and many small
7 dogs. The Judge seemed satisfied because the owner pointed out a
8 discrepancy between the wording of the muzzle order and the law about
9 the muzzle order with regard to being on the owner's property.
10 So she was satisfied that that was within the law to clarify
11 that the law would prevail over the muzzle order wording. As my dog
12 hadn‟t done anything more ... certainly not more damage than that
13 dog, and quite a lot less actually, it seems to me that it was likely
14 that if I had had the opportunity we could have clarified it and made
15 it consistent with that ruling.
16 In any case, it was a very long, drawn out and again, exceptional
17 case and the judge had to actually carve out for herself how to address
18 the additional penalty, because there is no guidance in the statutes.
19 There is no policy, and so she made her determination of what was
20 available to her as options.
21 The additional penalty only stipulates that a judge may have

379
1 a dog destroyed or otherwise dealt with. These are open-ended things
2 and in some jurisdictions, otherwise dealt with can mean something
3 as a dog being sold to a laboratory for research. There is some very
4 troubling matters there. And the connection between the two, the
5 offence of the owner and the additional penalty seems to be very
6 problematic and I would try to address that.

7 THE COURT: All right. So let's get back now...
8 MS. ROGIER: But in any case, she came home.
9 THE COURT: So just a minute. So you got, that's what we
10 are getting to.
11 MS. ROGIER: We got her home.
12 THE COURT: So you got Brindi back.
13 MS. ROGIER: As a surprise. As Susan Jordan testified this
14 morning, I think it was around July 7 that I got a fax from the Court,
15 just two days after she notified HRM counsel that she was prepared
16 to go back and present her results of the training. And we expected
17 about a week or so to go by. And suddenly we got a fax saying that

18 provided HRM signed off on the fence, which had been up, in fact,
19 for two years. I built it within weeks after they first seized
20 Brindi. And, in fact, all the conditions that Judge Murphy had
21 imposed were identical to offers that I made immediately after Brindi

380
1 was seized, including complying with the muzzle order, and a fenced
2 enclosure, which I built. And then also training, further training
3 and payment of fines.
4 But as I said, I was not charged with an offence until two days
5 after the Supreme Court decision came down. So then there was a whole
6 different field of, you know, activity at that point. And, in any
7 case, she came home. I continued to work with Ms. Jordan. As Ms.
8 Jordan said, everything that she said today I can confirm that we
9 had a very detailed plan. I think that she probably submitted an
10 overly ambitious, not ambitious, but overly detailed plan far and
11 above what the judge and what HRM had expected.
12 And I had that impression from the By-law Officer, Bill Moore,
13 as well, as I met with him as we launched into this. He thought it
14 would take a week or two. I said, AI don't know. We are going to
15 be very thorough.@ So we were.
16 I, again, have been putting off my life for this entire time
17 to leave time for training. And I did everything that I could in

18 that. I was then allowed to visit Brindi. For most of time that
19 Brindi was detained I was not allowed to visit her.
20 THE COURT: You have to bring me back from July 7.
21 MS. ROGIER: So, July 7th, then I was then with her. And,
381
1 that, she was with me for about two and a half months ...
2 THE COURT: That was 2010, all right.
3 MS. ROGIER: Right.
4 THE COURT: You were taking training during this time with
5 Ms. Jordan.
6 MS. ROGIER: Right. We had completed what the court

7 required as far as that went. I was voluntarily doing more, because
8 as we said this morning, I wanted her to be perfect and I wanted to
9 continue to work with her. I believe she is a great dog and I love
10 her very dearly and I know she is very smart. She could have been
11 trained to do anything.
12 So, Ms. Jordan, I was very, very fortunate that I found her and
13 that she was willing. And, I was certainly very motivated to do
14 everything she advised me to do. There were times during ... when
15 she was in the kennel that, I just want to add, that, Ms. Jordan was
16 not always present after a certain point, and I would go back and
17 visit Brindi and drill her on the things that we had learned.
18 So then on the day of September 14, I had driven out to the valley
19 to look at a car a couple of days earlier to buy a new car. It was
20 a 2002 Subaru. This car, as I said earlier, has a very different
21 window operating button and it's a hooked button or latch, it's not
382
1 the thing where you know, you press the top of it and it goes up,
2 you press the bottom of it and it goes down. It is completely
3 opposite direction. And it is a stick shift. My former car was a
4 manual. I am sorry, automatic.
5 I know how to drive a stick shift, but it had been some time
6 so I was adjusting to the new car. Drove home, and Brindi had been
7 actually been muzzled and leashed all day in the car and it was really
8 hot. I stopped off at the grocery store which is about five minutes
9 away from my home. I went and bought groceries, and as I did, I left
10 Brindi in the car with the window cracked and I removed her muzzle
11 because, as Ms. Jordan said, it's dangerous especially with a stick
12 shift in the car and other things. And I wanted her to be able to
13 drink water in the car.
14 It was very warm still in the evening. So, I wasn't long in
15 the store and then I was just really literally five minutes from
16 my home and drove home. And I adjusted the window. She was directly
17 behind me. It is a very dark evening, and I believed that I had the
18 window open about two inches, no more than that. And what had
19 happened was because of this window-opening device, about which I
20 can show you that a long-time Subaru owner seemed to have trouble
21 with. That‟s what I wanted to submit to you. I have a letter from

383
1 someone who had been ... which is notarized about this, that
2 unbeknownst to me, that the window was actually a few inches more,
3 I meant to bring it up. It came down a couple of inches. And it
4 still wasn't really very wide open. I wouldn't say that it would
5 be irresponsible, in fact.
6 And I want to also stress that when I went to buy the car, I
7 was on the property, it was a private property which had a number
8 of dogs and Brindi did not react hostilely or negatively or
9 aggressively at all to these dogs.
10 She was muzzled. She was in the car. She made no reaction.
11 It was surprising to me that then suddenly she would become aggressive
12 as I pulled into my home. But, as we heard today, she does have these
13 territorial issues. But she also does have bite inhibition in the
14 sense that one might look at the number of incidents in a very
15 different way and suggest that she has had many opportunities to do
16 more damage. But she doesn't.
17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MS. ROGIER: So and also ...
19 THE COURT: All right, so you are pulling into your driveway
20 and you are saying that the window of the car that you believed it
21 was down a few inches?

384
1 MS. ROGIER: Two inches.
2 THE COURT: Two inches down.
3 MS. ROGIER: No more than that.
4 THE COURT: How big is your dog?
5 MS. ROGIER: I was just doing that. She is about a 65-pound
6 dog. You have seen photographs. Would you like to see some more
7 photos?
8 THE COURT: No, no that's fine. I am just trying to relate
9 in my mind how you are saying the window was down two inches, and
10 yet the testimony I have heard is that the dog, you say 65 pounds,
11 jumped out of the window.
12 MS. ROGIER: Now, ma'am, I was saying that the window
13 controls were opposite to what I was accustomed to. So I thought
14 I had to put the window up to two inches opening. And, in fact, it
15 had gone another couple of inches down. But it was very, very dark
16 and I was just driving home a short distance and I just didn't stop
17 and look at the window.

18 And, you know, I am used to being able to control the window.
19 This is a brand new car, that day. So, I pulled into my property,
20 yes, and that much is true what the witnesses are saying. And, as
21 I pulled, I had actually planned to drive straight through and go

385
1 and see a friend and show them to the car.
2 When I say the Simms, for some reason ... something reflectively
3 I don't know why, I can't even explain why, I turned into the driveway.
4 They had their dog but they were right actually very, very close to
5 my driveway. I couldn't tell you, I don't know they can be sure.
6 Especially two years later, I don't know which way they went. I do
7 know that my gravel driveway is identical to the gravel shoulder.
8 And it's very difficult to determine where the property line begins
9 and where the property line ends, and that's one of the submissions
10 I have. That's the photo that I had that I wanted to show you.
11 THE COURT: Perhaps, would you like to have a look at those
12 photos at this point? We can maybe submit them all at the same
13 time.
14 MS. ROGIER: Yes, I would like to just make sure that ...
15 THE COURT: Did you want to look at those now?
16 MS. ROGIER: This is the photo. I am sorry but it was hard
17 to get this together. There is going to be ...

18 THE COURT: Do you have any problem with those being
19 submitted?
20 MS. SALSMAN: No.
21 MS. ROGIER: I took a panorama ...

386
1 THE COURT: Okay. Okay, let's ... maybe we can just get
2 that marked as Exhibit.
3 MS. ROGIER: May I ask.
4 THE COURT: Exhibit 14.
6 EXHIBIT 14 B PHOTO OF ROGIER DRIVEWAY, MARKED AND ENTERED

7
8 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, one of the things that struck me,
9 I don't know ...
10 THE COURT: Is that the only ... is that the picture that
11 you wanted ...
12 MS. ROGIER: No, there, if I may B
13 THE COURT: No, go ahead. Oh, I see, there is a grouping
14 of three photographs.
15 MS. ROGIER: Now I believe that … (inaudible) This is the
16 material that Ms. Simms supplied showing where the location was...
17 THE COURT: I think that probably in our, I would look to

18 Ms. Salsman, I think she would ... (inaudible)
19 MS. ROGIER: It's an attachment that you sent to me in the
20 disclosure file.
21 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, it's part of the disclosure, but it was an

387
1 Exhibit.
2 THE COURT: Oh, I see. It's part of the disclosure, but not
3 part of the exhibits.
4 MS. ROGIER: It's ... it's the actual, the odd thing about
5 this is that the lines that show where my property line is, have been
6 erased. But there is star, it is a very ... (inaudible)

7 THE COURT: Well, I don't have that, so ...
8 MS. ROGIER: I'd be happy to submit it ...
9 THE COURT: If you want to put that in, that's fine.
10 Exhibit 15?
11
12 EXHIBIT 15 B SIMMS ATTACHMENT C DIAGRAM, MARKED AND ENTERED
13
14 MS. ROGIER: So you did get the photograph?
15 THE COURT: I have that, yes, that's Exhibit 14.
16 MS. ROGIER: If I may, I'll stand here and ...
17 THE COURT: Okay, so that‟s ... you‟re going to ... go ahead.

18 Just describe.
19 MS. ROGIER: What I want to point out to you ...
20 THE COURT: Just have a seat, that's fine.
21 MS. ROGIER: There's a streetlamp ...

388
1 THE COURT: Just have a seat, that's fine.
2 MS. ROGIER: Oh sorry. There is a streetlamp to the left
3 that you see in the beginning of the left. And then you see the road
4 continuing and you see a green garbage pail to the right. Now the
5 garbage pail is the beginning of my driveway. The incident actually
6 took place somewhere in that area, and somewhere between ... It was
7 not on the pavement, I would maintain. It was on the gravel area,
8 but it was a very dark night. The only light source that really could
9 illuminate the road was all the way back to the left of this photo.
10 That's quite some distance and I would say 50, 6 ... I don‟t know,
11 something, 50 -60 feet, it's a little tricky to do. I haven't
12 measured it exactly, but that's what it is. And it was dark. And
13 it was very, very quick that things happened and as I pulled in, I
14 looked around, I heard some movement or sensed some movement. I
15 see my dog wiggling out the window and I see she, you know, she is
16 going to get out. So before she even hit the ground, I got out of
17 the door and I ran right back to her. I ran over to where she and
18 the Simms were. In fact, I didn't even notice that they were kicking
19 her. That was a discovery I had in the disclosure file.
20 THE COURT: So where did you run up to?
21 MS. ROGIER: I ran right to where they were, which is

389
1 somewhere around those, you know, the little ... things have changed
2 slightly, but it was somewhere around where that garbage pail is and
3 the driveway, to the right of the garbage pail. And, instantly I
4 did, within a few seconds, the whole incident couldn‟t have lasted
5 about 16 - 17 seconds I would say. And I think my experience has
6 taught me a little bit more to be accurate about how long things last.
7 And I realize that the Simms talked about things going on and on,
8 but I can ... you know, it's my testimony that Brindi never had a
9 firm grip on that dog. And I do not know what exactly happened
10 between the two dogs. I only know that what I observed was that they
11 were spinning around vertically, as if they were in some kind of
12 whirlpool. They were not rolling. They were spinning around, this
13 way. Then I reached and grabbed Brindi and when I did have the
14 opportunity, by the collar. I took her into the house. I came out
15 right away. I was really astonished and I came out and I asked Mr.
16 Simms, as he testified if his dog was okay.
17 And I asked them their names, and I apologized and I said you
18 know, if their dog is okay, because I could tell that Mrs. Simms was
19 somehow working up a big anger. I don't know, she did not go and
20 look at her dog though. She just stood around the street and she
21 was ... she was somewhat, you know, I could see boisterous. And,
390
1 I didn't know who they were, as I said. And it was the same as with
2 David Shea. He was just visiting, I didn't know who they were. So
3 she then ... I just said to them, AWould you please, if your dog is
4 all right, please don't report this to HRM because they will come
5 and get her and she just got out,@ and I am trying to make sure she
6 is okay.
7 And I had sort of a disproportionate response from Ms. Simms
8 that she surprised me that she ... as she confirmed, I think, in her
9 testimony, that she suddenly said to me, AI don't give a fuck about
10 anybody else's dog. I only care about mine.@
11 And pardon me for using this language, Your Honour, because I
12 don't normally ...
13 THE COURT: That's all right. I hear it often.
14 MS. ROGIER: ... swear in public. So this was a shock to me.
15 And then I was very, very concerned and I didn't know what to do.
16 As anyone would not know, and as anyone under pressure. The pressure
17 and the stress I can tell you of the two years that it took to get
18 my dog back. The developments that were so unpredicted, and I tried
19 everything that I could possibly do to persuade the City before
20 going to court. And after going to court, they became more and more
21 unreasonable. And I think that the amount of stress is hard to

391
1 underestimate, Your Honour.
2 I sacrificed my income. I sacrificed my family connections,
3 friends, and at the same time I have been embraced by many, many people
4 who feel that this is a very bad situation, and the need to even raise
5 money and so on. It took a lot of time.
6 I assisted with the Supreme Court case, and in fact, I devised

7 the strategy and went the lawyer with that, so that they could do
8 this, and again, disbelieving. So by the time this happened, Your
9 Honour, and I had these thoughts through my head, that that's it,
10 you know. I could just see, I would never get my house done. I would
11 never ... My dog would be killed. I would never manage to resume
12 my career, and so on. And everything that I had planned when I came
13 to this country in 2006 was now completely gone.
14 THE COURT: Would you like a glass of water?
15 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I went to school for a long time.
16 I trained as an architect. I became a professor. I started working
17 on a PhD and I spent 12 years on that. I went and have lived in Berlin.
18 I lived in Kentucky and I taught as a professor for five years. I
19 taught at Harvard for two semesters. I went to MIT. I am a
20 responsible person.
21 I delayed being able to have a dog until I could live in a house

392
1 in the country. So that a dog would have a good life. I rescued
2 this dog. (crying) I am sorry, Your Honour...
3 THE COURT: That's all right.
4 MS. ROGIER: And I got her a good life, and she was the best
5 thing. Thank you. She is the best thing in my life. I came here
6 to start a new life that I didn't have to go through the stress of

7 being in the academic world. I didn't mean to depart from it. I
8 was publishing and I was going to seminars but I intended to revise
9 and renovate a house that I bought, a very old heritage house. And
10 my plans for the foundation were not restricted to the foundation.
11 They included a roof, new windows, and I had grants for this and I
12 was going to get it off the grid and it was going to have a new two-car
13 garage. And it was going to be my project. I delayed it for a year.
14 I had to fight for Brindi for two years and then in the end they took
15 her again. And the day that I went to court to get her back with
16 an injunction, I got served with a Notice that I had to get out of
17 my house in three weeks.

18 The injunction was based on the argument that there is no legal
19 authority to continue holding a dog. There just is not. I have had
20 several briefs from the City. And they contradict each other
21 steadily, including the one that we have for this case, Your Honour.
393
1 I don't have the hours in the day to write all the things that
2 would be there needed to really demonstrate exactly how wrong all
3 this is. I do the best that I can, and I have done the best that
4 I can in this proceeding. It has been a long time coming. And, in
5 the meantime, I was evicted. I was not allowed an appeal for the
6 eviction, which didn't follow procedure and had no basis and being
7 an architect I can certainly say that my house was not structurally
8 unsound, as it was said.
9 I was exposed to the media. My reputation has been ruined. You
10 cannot rule out that this is connected to my dog. You may not be
11 willing to believe it, but you cannot rule it out. Because, the
12 timing was exactly to the day that I went for a hearing, October 8,
13 2010, that I was served with a three-week notice to get out, there
14 was no Order to Remedy, nothing.
15 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour. You are going very far afield from
16 what's relevant.
17 MS. ROGIER: This is related to this case, ma‟am.

18 THE COURT: It is ... I mean I agree that it's going a little
19 bit far afield. I appreciate you are in a very dire circumstance.
20 MS. ROGIER: I want to bring it back to the arraignment, Your
21 Honour. Because your arraignment that I appeared before you is

394
1 around October 16, I believe. And then I had concerns that I would
2 like to consult counsel. I had not had the opportunity because I
3 was under a deadline for this house to do certain things, or it would
4 be torn down, or not torn down, I would be evicted October 30.
5 THE COURT: Are you speaking now about the request for an
6 adjournment for plea?

7 MS. ROGIER: Yeah, it was to find counsel. Yes, and that's
8 right and that's for the plea. So then that was postponed until
9 December. And, I came in December and said that I would like to make
10 a Charter, you know, contest the charges on Charter grounds. Now,
11 that continued and that was set for 11 months later to November. And,
12 then shortly before that I injured myself while I was working with
13 some concrete blocks on my property. And unfortunately, it made it
14 difficult to type and I knew that couldn't complete my preparation
15 for things that are here, which is very challenging, you have to
16 admit.
17 And so, this was postponed again for five months or so, until
18 now. I haven't, I don't know how to say this. Preparing this is
19 not just as straightforward as, you know, because given the
20 situation, given the history, given the laws, and now the overlap
21 I see between the HRM Charter and the A-300, which I didn't even know
395
1 about. That they both allow a seizure and they seem to have kind
2 of out of discrepancy... some kind out of sync and so it makes it
3 very, very challenging for anyone. And I can tell you that I have
4 spoken with many lawyers. I have looked for lawyers at every turn,
5 and the reason that I am representing myself, is in part, because
6 I have no more money and is in part, because it is very difficult

7 to find a lawyer willing and really competent and able to come and
8 do this kind of case. And they are also aware of the agenda that's
9 on the other side, and they are not willing to engage. It's like
10 my opinion, it's my experience. And so, this is why I am representing
11 myself.
12 THE COURT: Oh, no, that's fine. You don't have to explain
13 that.
15 THE COURT: Many people have to represent themselves.
16 MS. ROGIER: I haven't seen Brindi now since September 27,
17 2010. I was not allowed visits at first. At five months later,

18 visits were offered and they are restricted highly and under
19 conditions that I had already experienced while she was at the SPCA
20 that are very psychologically, I would say, harmful and injurious
21 to both me and her. They don't allow me to go to see her for more
396
1 than half an hour once a week. They do not allow me to bring her
2 any food. I may not take photographs of her. I may not bring a
3 friend. I may not speak to the staff and so on.
4 These are very restrictive, Your Honour, and again against the
5 context of an unclear legal situation. Very, very hard to deal with.
6 And my dog, as Susan Jordan talked about today, had been making good
7 progress. And, so she had a backwards moment, and which, Susan
8 Jordan says was entirely to be expected. And, not a sign that a dog
9 was necessary been, you know, a write-off in any way, but was really
10 making progress. And she also indicated, Your Honour, we had a plan
11 and we were just about to go... The thing is Ms. Jordan, as you
12 probably could observe today is very, very thorough in her approach
13 in her profession. In fact, you know, if there is anything I could
14 say that was a difficult for me it was the extent to which she was
15 so thorough, because I was very impatient to get the desensitizing
16 phase on our property. And that night I felt very frustrated, which
17 I expressed in the phone call as you can read, to Michelle Steen who
18 in turn ... it really was truly a sympathetic ear for me. And I said
19 to her, you know, damn it, you know, I really ... we were supposed
20 to do this and we never managed to do this. It was the summer and
21 she was very, very busy.

397
1 But she and I were in constant contact. And I reported to her
2 that summer also that when Brindi was wearing her muzzle that there
3 was six or seven incidents where dogs came at her. She didn't even
4 respond. They were just attacking her, because they were confused,
5 Susan says.
6 THE COURT: What we are dealing with is what happened on

7 September 14th.
8 MS. ROGIER: During that time, Brindi was I think a dog that‟s
9 being attacked and then I had to, you know, protect her. Put her,
10 maybe perhaps in a higher state of anxiety. I don't know. I am not
11 an expert . I only know that that very day she had behaved
12 beautifully and we were coming home after a long day, and then she
13 ended up getting out of the window, you know, under really, I don't
14 know that I could have done anything different.
15 Certainly, you can always look back and say, Oh, I should have
16 ... you know, turn ... Even turning my head, it was so dark I r didn‟t
17 really know how to see and it was, you know, (have a tell?) And I
18 didn't expect ... the window wasn't even halfway down actually. It
19 was about ... it couldn't have been more than a third of the way down.
20 So, that incident, though, terrified me and I think it would be
21 understandable that it would. And I called Michelle, who I had

398
1 spoken to infrequently over the years since 2008, only to ask her
2 about a report. I had no intention of making a report. Absolutely
3 no intention. I was looking to find out what was happening.
4 Michelle had knowledge of the system and Michelle knew that
5 people called the dispatch. Michelle would know if there was a
6 report. And she was very happy to tell me. As you saw this morning,
7 I have no animosity towards Michelle, in any way. Although, one
8 might imagine that I would, because of course, you know, she suggested
9 something in a moment to me when I was very vulnerable to suggestion.
10 And so, I decided to do that. But I did think about it for three
11 hours, but during those three hours, I had a lot of other things to
12 think about. And so, I wasn't sure what to do.
13 I made a decision in a moment of extreme duress that I regret
14 very much and I wish, you know, that I had done other things. I think
15 the only thing I can say about that, is that I had absolutely,
16 absolutely no reason to believe that the story about my car window
17 control would be accepted, would be understood, and that there would

18 be a measure of toleration or acceptance for that so that my dog
19 wouldn't be seized again. I had every expectation because she was
20 seized in a non-injury incident in 2008, in the first place. In the
21 meantime, I have researched many cases and I didn't understand why

399
1 this happened. I tried everything and so I couldn't endure this
2 again, at all. And I did leave ... I also had some plans to go on
3 vacation. We left, we went somewhere, and we came back. Because
4 I had a matter to deal with in town. I also had a cat to take care
5 of. I had obligations and I tried to keep her safe.
6 That very day on September 14, I think Valerie Rodger discussed

7 that I had reported to her that I took Brindi out for a walk in the
8 woods, and as we were returning and came in the car, inside the car
9 with me and Brindi about four or five dogs came running at us. And
10 I just, I went the entire way ... this is on Mines Road, I drove from
11 Mines Road to West Petpeswick and drove the entire way home the
12 longest possible route, like to Musquodoboit Harbour, then back to
13 East Chezzetcook to avoid those dogs. And I came back home and I
14 was very fatigued and then I had communicated with Ms. Rodger and
15 within half an hour she came to my door with two RCMP, who broke into
16 my home and took Brindi.
17 And they showed me the warrant, and I could not fathom why the
18 warrant only said ABrindi is a dangerous dog@ because you would think
19 at this time, it was already known she has a muzzle order that defines
20 her as dangerous and I was looking to see what else. Because, I had
21 ... I don't recall when I was given this material, I guess it was
400
1 after I was charged. I saw the vet bill and it was very, very minor.
2 There was very minor injuries. I was really upset that there was
3 any injuries, but glad and relieved that they weren't more serious.
4 And so, it was very difficult.
5 And then I learned again that this Miss Simms is actually the
6 daughter of my next-door neighbour, Lloyd Pettipas. And just before

7 the arraignment in October I was given the recordings that were made.
8 And, I had some sense that there must have been recordings contrary
9 to what Ms. Steen had said and I was absolutely convinced that she
10 would know if there was recordings, given that she was this
11 experienced dispatcher. I spoke to her certainly in her capacity
12 as a dispatcher and I think that it's hard to doubt that if you read
13 this and you listen to it. Well, in fact, to be honest with you,
14 Your Honour, I had friends listen to those tapes because it was too
15 traumatic for me. I have never listened to those tapes and I am very
16 glad I didn't walk in the courtroom at the time that you were hearing
17 them because I think I would have probably turned around and run out.
18 They were that distressing to me. It's distressing to me to
19 read the transcripts. So, but in case, Ms. Steen made the suggestion
20 about blaming it on the other dog thinking that there was no report
21 filed. And it had never occurred to me before and I had never heard
401
1 of anything like that. She pretty much writes the report. We do
2 discuss it. We try to figure this out. I am trying to calm down.
3 And looking at things, you know, to try to control things, I called
4 Susan Jordan and I called friends and I was in a state of extreme
5 panic.
6 It was such a shock to me that I went, finally, to go buy a car,

7 and because of a window controller, I don't even know what to call
8 it, you know, button or something. Because of this, this would
9 happen after all the work and the time that it took to get Brindi.
10 And I was very much in a state of post, postpartum depression, if
11 you like, and was just sort of crawling back to it and making strides
12 and I thought, by buying a car, that I was setting out on a new,
13 positive direction and fully intending and planning to continue
14 training her.
15 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
16 MS. ROGIER: So now that's pretty much it.
17 THE COURT: I think ... okay, I think we‟ll let ... just to
18 ... Ms. Salsman.
19 MS. ROGIER: You can ask questions. May I submit the letter
20 that I referred to about the ...
21 THE COURT: Is that about the car?

402
1 MS. ROGIER: Yes.
2 THE COURT: Did you want to have a look at that? It is
3 hearsay.
4 MS. ROGIER: It's about the equipment that I was driving.
5 This was prepared for November, Your Honour, this letter.
6 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I do have some issues with this.

7 It's hearsay where they are essentially giving evidence about how
8 the car operates. I mean we‟ve heard Ms. Rogier‟s evidence about
9 how the car operates ...
10 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, in lieu of that, I actually do have
11 some videos about the controls, but I just find that that is excessive
12 to do that. I can certainly do it.
13 THE COURT: But, okay. And, as I say, that is unfortunate,
14 that is hearsay and does ...
15 MS. ROGIER: Would you prefer video if I have video?
16 THE COURT: No, I have heard your testimony at which I will
17 weigh at the end of the day and so I think we will proceed now to
18 cross-examination.
19 MS. ROGIER: Can I ... well I do have these other materials
20 that I would like to submit.
21 THE COURT: Well, if you would just like ... perhaps if you
403
1 would, Ms. Salsman, have a look at those materials and let the Court
2 know if there is any objection to them being submitted.
3 MS. ROGIER: Yeah, I am not familiar with that procedure,
4 actually. But it's fine if you want to look at those. It just makes
5 things very difficult. I am just having a hard time sorting copies
6 because I have triplicates. I didn't experience this through the

7 trial last time. There was no problem with submitting anything.
8 This is the actual brief from October, 2008.
9 THE COURT: Well, that‟s of no use to me.
10 MS. ROGIER: I don't know if the Crown has any objection?
11 She has copies. I have extra copies.
12 THE COURT: I don't know what it is. I don't know what
13 you‟re referring ...
14 MS. SALSMAN: This is a brief from the application that Ms.
15 Rogier filed in the Supreme Court ... (inaudible)
16 MS. ROGIER: You had asked if I sought the return of my dog.
17 This was the time that I sought the return of my dog.

18 THE COURT: That's fine. I don't need to see that. I don‟t
19 need to see or have that exhibit. That's fine.
20 MS. ROGIER: For the Charter claim, I was thinking, for that
21 purpose.
404
1 THE COURT: I don't think I need it for that purpose. I
2 can't, I mean it's public record, I suppose, you could ...
3 MS. ROGIER: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
4 THE COURT: ... I supposed we could just have it exhibited
5 and I can give it due weight if ... as I see fit.
6 MS. SALSMAN: That's fine. I think it's irrelevant.

7 MS. ROGIER: It's actually part of my rebuttal, Your Honour.
8 THE COURT: I think it is irrelevant, perhaps. But Ms.
9 Rogier is saying it may have issues with respect to her Charter
10 argument, so let's not close any doors on Ms. Rogier. I want that
11 to be ...
12 MS. ROGIER: Thank you, Your Honour. I just want to state
13 that it is part of the rebuttal that you had asked me ...
14 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine
15
16 EXHIBIT 16 B MARKED AND ENTERED B SUPREME COURT MOTION CROWN BRIEF
17
18 MS. ROGIER: ... to prepare. Now, there is also ... the
19 photograph that was submitted I have an extra copy for the Crown.
20 I have a summary. I did submit a list of prosecutions of outcome
21 of dogs that I submitted earlier. I have a summary for that that

405
1 goes with that. And, Your Honour, with regard to, some of these are
2 more related to the Charter argument, in terms of the handling of
3 the case and the question of bringing the administration of justice
4 into disrepute and the connection to the Constitution. In truth,
5 I could probably submit to you hundreds of papers of not just this
6 petition that I submitted to you already, which has 10,000 names,

7 but also numerous, numerous letters. Including some other ...
8 THE COURT: No, the letters are hearsay. They are all
9 hearsay. I can't look to letters as part of the evidence.
10 MS. ROGIER: They are a statements that are testament to the
11 public impression of the prosecution, Your Honour.
12 THE COURT: No, I can't look to ...
13 MS. ROGIER: And they were submitted, they were accepted last
14 time at trial.
15 THE COURT: Well, they may well have been.
16 MS. SALSMAN: Essentially letters, Your Honour, and emails
17 between people who are not present here today.

18 THE COURT: No. It's all hearsay and it's not
19 appropriate.
20 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I have to say that I have some
21 doubts about this trial. I have very, very strong concerns. The
406
1 rigidity of the acceptance of evidence, as well as other things.
2 THE COURT: Okay, that's fine. Did you ... have you had a
3 look through all those materials?
4 MS. SALSMAN: I looked through it, Your Honour. And the
5 letters and emails, I believe that those are hearsay, and I don't
6 believe they should be entered.

7 MS. ROGIER: The summary?
8 MS. SALSMAN: And then the other item there was the
9 information to obtain a warrant with regards to 2008 ...
10 THE COURT: Oh, I see.
11 MS. SALSMAN: ... offence, which I believed we had already
12 ruled was not relevant.
13 THE COURT: Right.
14 MS. ROGIER: I read part of that this morning into the
15 evidence.
16 THE COURT: All right. All right. No, that's fine. The
17 rest would not be relevant to what I need.

18 MS. ROGIER: I have documentation showing how the original
19 muzzle order came about.
20 THE COURT: No, I don't need that, madam. I don't need
21 that. I am not going to go behind prior orders. All right? We‟re

407
1 dealing with the orders ...
2 MS. ROGIER: I understand, Your Honour. But I do think that
3 going further ...
4 THE COURT: We are dealing with the Orders here and the
5 charges here before me. That's what I have to deal with, Ms. Rogier.
6 MS. ROGIER: I have a document outlining my attempts to get

7 my dog back. You had asked.
8 THE COURT: No. We are going to go ahead with
9 cross-examination, Okay.
10 MS. ROGIER: Was this no to the information then? The two
11 thousand and ...
12 THE COURT: I don't want to see anything else. There is
13 nothing else that I need as far as I can see. And you can certainly
14 provide once you receive Ms. Salsman's arguments in written form with
15 respect to your Charter motions, you can certainly respond back. I
16 will give you time to do that in writing. And, maybe that you would
17 attach some of that information that you have there and I once, again,
18 will decide whether it's relevant or not. At this point, Ms. Salsman
19 has reviewed that, and has said there are letters from individuals
20 that have not appeared before the Court. They are do with matters
21 that on prior charges against, the court have already been ruled on
408
FRANCESCA ROGIER, Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman
1 and dealt with so we are just dealing with what we have before us
2 today. So if you would like to start with your cross-examination,
3 please.
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. SALSMAN
6 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Ms. Rogier, you first adopted Brindi in 2007.
8 MS. ROGIER: No, Your Honour, I would like to move for a
9 mis ...
10 THE COURT: No, I am just going to go ahead now with
11 cross-examination matters, so listen to the questions and respond.
12 MS. ROGIER: I am listening. I‟m not very ... I am concerned
13 about this trial.
14 THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Salsman.
15 MS. SALSMAN: So, Ms. Rogier, you first adopted Brindi in
16 2007, is that right?
18 Q. And where did you adopt her from?
19 A. I adopted her from a shelter in Cape Breton. I don't know
20 if that's relevant.
21 THE COURT: Don't be argumentative. Put down the

409
1 paperwork.
2 A. That‟s right.
3 THE COURT: Put down the paperwork, please, and listen to
4 the questions. Thank you.
5 MS. SALSMAN: So you adopted her from a shelter in Cape Breton.
6 Now I think you referred before that she was a rescue dog, is that
7 right?
9 Q. So what does that mean? Where did she come from?
10 A. She came from a native reserve.
11 Q. And was there issues with how she was dealt with on that
12 native reserve?
13 A. None at all.
14 Q. So when you say she was a rescue dog you just mean she was
15 adopted from a shelter.
16 A. Yeah, that typical reference.
17 Q. Okay, and you had her in 2007 and then the first incident
18 that you had with Brindi attacking another dog, or being, you know,
19 involved in an altercation with another dog was in August of 2007,
20 is that right?
21 A. I believe so.
410
1 Q. And at that time that‟s when you said that there was no
2 actual injury to the dog but there was an attack that took place on
3 the border of your property?
4 A. That‟s correct.
5 Q. Okay. And ...
6 A. Actually, it was, I don't know where you determine this

7 unless, I don't know what dog's think, but it was actually within
8 the ... it was not on the shoulder of the road, it was actually on
9 lawn area.
10 Q. Okay. And at that point you were just given a warning.
12 Q. In April of 2008 was when there was another incident, is
13 that right?
15 Q. And, that‟s when ... that was a slightly more serious
16 incident, would you agree with that?
17 A. Slightly more, but the owner said to me that she didn't

18 intend to call, she was mainly calling to see that someone spoke to
19 me, that she didn't know what would happen, but she was also basing
20 her decision on that she had heard rumours. I have an email from
21 her to that effect.

411
1 Q. Okay, but going back to what actually happened that day.
2 So this was when you received the muzzle order, is that right?
3 A. I was informed that I was to be fined, might be fined. And
4 within ... it actually took some time, it was a week or so, and Officer
5 Tim Hamm, who has since been fired by HRM, had changed it to a muzzle
6 order.
7 Q. Right, and that was after you were informed that you could
8 be fined, you actually contacted the owner of the other dog, didn't
9 you, and said that you wouldn't be able to afford their vet bills,
10 if you were given a fine.
11 A. I contacted her after she submitted two vet bills. She
12 went to a brand new vet that doubled the cost that it would have been
13 because the vet charged for an extra exam. And I expressed to her
14 that I didn't have a job, and that I felt that a $220 fine plus 143,
15 and I want to point out that the Supreme Court documentation in the
16 ruling is inaccurate. It wasn't $360, it was $143 or so. That I
17 felt that that was a very large amount of money. I was prepared to
18 pay what I could and we had extensive communication about that.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. And I did pay her.
21 Q. Right, okay. And but what happened on that day was that
412
1 Brindi came and ran at Flowers, is that right?
2 A. She had recognized this dog from a prior incident where
3 actually that dog had threatened and attacked my dog, but I didn't
4 allow anything to happen. We maintained a distance and I had control
5 of my dog.
6 Q. Okay, but on this day.

7 A. On this day, that's why I would explain that she definitely
8 recognized that dog. It was very short, it was cut short and there
9 was some confusion around because there was three hum ... well, these
10 two humans. She had a friend walking with her and they were not sure,
11 they were just caught off guard and they were falling around. But
12 it was over very quickly and I assisted immediately and brought first-
13 aid out to the dog. I, you know, assisted them in ... and I actually
14 had the dog sit for me and this is exactly what I did with the previous
15 incident. I went over the dog from head to toe with the owner and
16 to make sure that that dog was okay, and was satisfied in the first
17 instance that there was nothing wrong. In the second instance, we

18 located this injury and I immediately offered to her as a way of
19 apologizing, so that I would be happy to foot the bill for an exam.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. And make the sure the dog was okay.

413
1 A. But moving back. So Brindi came running out after this
2 other dog. Is that right?
3 Q. We were, Brindi and I were walking into my home. She was
4 briefly off leash on my property. We were walking into my home at
5 the time. We had just, in fact, visited Lloyd Pettipas. So we were
6 coming home. And that was a moment where normally I would have her
7 leashed even on my property. This was a very rare moment where she
8 was not on the leash.
9 Q. Okay. But you didn't answer my question. Did she run at
10 ... she ran at the other dog?
11 A. Yes, obviously.
12 Q. Okay. And at that point, one of the people there was
13 actually knocked over by Brindi, wasn't she?
14 A. I don't know who knocked over who. In fact, I got poked
15 by somebody. I think it was just a very ... a lot of confusion. I
16 don't think anyone can reasonably say with any accuracy who did what.
17 All I know is that it happened. And there was two people close
18 together. There were two dogs and then I joined the fray, and we
19 just separated them, or I did. And that was that.
20 Q. Okay. Did you see somebody fall over?
21 A. I can't even ... no I didn't see anything, actually. I

414
1 didn't see anyone fall over. I didn't see anybody get bitten. I
2 didn't see any, you know, anything. So ...
3 Q. Okay, and you actually injured your finger that day, didn't
4 you?
5 A. Yes, and you know I can't say how I injured my finger.
6 Q. But you ... but at some point during the point of that
7 incident ...
8 A. I was also poked in the breast and I don't know who I am
9 going to blame on that. Things that happen like this so quickly you
10 can't really be sure.
11 Q. But sometime during the whole altercation your finger was
12 dislocated, is that right?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. Okay. And after that you received the muzzle order. And
15 the muzzle order told you that you should keep Brindi leashed, or
16 muzzled at all times when outside. Is that right?
18 Q. And then in July, 2008, so just a few months later, there
19 was another incident, is that right?
20 A. I described that in my previous testimony, yes.
21 Q. Yeah. And you were convicted of that in February of 2010?

415
1 A. Yes, quite some time afterwards. I wasn't charged for
2 that until January 19, 2009. Okay. And when they seized her, there
3 were no charges associated. I didn't have a chance to appear before
4 a court of law.
5 Q. And you were aware that that conviction lead to you ...
6 to Judge Murphy making the order, that when Brindi was outside the
7 residence, and not in her escape-proof enclosure, that she should
8 be muzzled at all times?
9 A. I explained that earlier. And, I can say this again. I
10 understood what the law was. I understood what the muzzle order
11 said. I noticed that there was a discrepancy and there was a third
12 discrepancy with Judge Murphy, which I feel isn't really explainable
13 by either her ruling in writing, or the law, or the muzzle order and
14 I would like the opportunity to clarify. I don't feel that the ...
15 by keeping her, it doesn't make any sense to keep a dog muzzled when
16 she is inside a confined enclosure.
17 Q. Okay. But I am not asking you if you thought it made sense,

18 I am asking you if you understood that that was in Judge Murphy's
19 order.
20 A. I personally don't think it was her intention, because she
21 has other errors of writing in this ruling, and I had sought to clarify
416
1 it.
2 Q. So you felt that despite the ...
3 A. So nevertheless ...
4 Q. ... fact that she said that that Brindi had to be muzzled
5 at all times when outside ...
6 A. Nevertheless, as I testified, I did muzzle her and leash

7 her in the car practically all the time except for when I felt that
8 her health interests would outweigh the risk of have anything happen
9 while she was already in a contained enclosure.
10 Q. Okay, so you made the judgment call over whether you
11 thought it was appropriate to follow the muzzle order.
12 A. Only on that particular evening, not as a rule.
13 Q. But you heard Susan Jordan's evidence, as well, that other
14 times you would have Brindi in the car without the muzzle on.
15 A. She testified as to what she would do, and I actually agree
16 that if you interpret that what Judge Murphy says is actually not
17 as you interpret it at all. If you will give it to me, I would like

18 to read it, because I think it's important to clarify. It doesn't
19 necessary say that a dog should be muzzled. Only a dog that was
20 incredibly beastly would legitimately require that and if she was
21 that bad, then you can guarantee that Susan Jordan wouldn't have
417
1 worked with us.
2 Q. Okay, so you thought that the muzzle order was unjustified?
3 A. No, I didn't say that at all. You are putting words into
4 my mouth now. I said that ... I understood the muzzle order and I
5 read it and I interpreted exactly the words that it said to say what
6 I did, which is to muzzle her when she is off the property when she
7 was outside of the confined enclosure, which would be a car, and which
8 would be the dog run that I built.
9 Q. So you say that the car is an escape-proof enclosure?
10 A. Well, provided that the windows are not open sufficiently
11 that a dog can escape, yes.
12 Q. Okay. So it's an escape-proof enclosure which your dog
13 escaped from?
14 A. Accidentally, yes.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Not to my knowledge, it was a mistake of fact. I did not
17 know that ... had taken a normal average means and steps to ensure
18 that the window was not open all the way, that the window was not
19 open so that my dog could get out. It was never my intention, and
20 it was something that was developed through the fact of my new car.
21 I was unfamiliar with the controls, it was very difficult. In fact,

418
1 it remains difficult to this day. As I said, my friend who has
2 had a Subaru for 11 years, has still got problems with it. It's
3 just ...
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. It's just not intuitive.
6 Q. So.
7 A. And I can show that.
8 Q. You were there when the order was made?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. Okay, and the order also required you to build an escape-
11 proof enclosure in your backyard.
12 A. I had already constructed it in 2008 in August and
13 September. There was no other need for me to build anything.
14 Q. Okay. But the order required you to have one of those
15 enclosures?
16 A. And to have it approved by HRM, who had never come to
17 approve it before.
18 Q. Okay. And, then, maybe we can get the order? I think it
19 is Exhibit 7?
20 A. I really don't think it's necessary to do this, but I guess
21 that doesn't matter.

419
1 MS. SALSMAN: The decision of Judge Murphy?
2 THE COURT: Oh, I might have that here. It is Exhibit 6.
3 That's the ... make sure that's the one, the order. That's the order.
4 I think there was two. There was the decision and then there was
5 the... one okay. ... (inaudible)
6 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, well, I guess I'll save this for
7 later.
8 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, so can you just read there the second
9 paragraph for me?
10 A. “Or” it says “or”, okay, when Brindi is outside
11 the residence. It says:
12 Ms. Rogier will keep the dog Brindi securely
13 restrained either indoors or when Brindi is
14 outdoors, she shall be muzzled at all times and
15 inside an escape-proof enclosure.
16 The law reads “or” inside an escape-proof enclosure ...
17 that does ... and the rest is identical to the law.

18 ... that does not allow the dog to jump, climb
19 or dig its way out while it is on the property
20 of the owner. And, the enclosure is to approved
21 ... (in face there is a mistake there) ... and

420
1 the enclosure is to approved by Animal Services
2 (and it says „animals‟ plural) ... Services for
3 Halifax Regional Municipality or a person
4 designated by them. Or when Brindi is outside
5 (this is a new sentence) ...the residence and
6 not in the escape-proof enclosure, that the dog

7 Brindi should be muzzled at all times, securely
8 leashed and Ms. Rogier shall ensure that the
9 dog, Brindi, is under the control of a person
10 not under the age of 18 years of age who has
11 experience and proven ability to control Brindi
12 when the dog is outside the residence of the
13 owner.
14 Now, the phrase, Aoutside the residence@ is not very
15 clear.
16 Q. Okay, but you would agree ...
17 A. Does that mean outside the building or outside the

18 property, not clear. The and/or situation is not clear. The phrase
19 “or when Brindi is outside the residence” is not specific. I don't
20 know what the either/or is, and so on. And as I stated, I sought
21 the opportunity to clarify this so that I would be sure that I was

421
1 following it correctly and that it was the intention of the court
2 that was clear in this instance.
3 Q. So, Ms. Rogier, is what you are saying to the Court here
4 today is that when you got that order on April 30, 2010, you didn't
5 understand what orders were in place against you?
6 Q. I did not know fully from this text that it was absolutely
7 sure that this was being done. I did not say, that does mean,
8 however, that I didn't take measures to ensure that Brindi was within
9 the ... was consistent with what was said here.
10 Q. But you would agree that the order of Judge Murphy does
11 say that when Brindi is outdoors, she should be muzzled at all times
12 “and” inside an escape-proof enclosure, not “or” inside an escape-
13 proof enclosure.
14 A. That would suggest that she would be muzzled inside of a
15 dog run, which one would then question, why would there be a dog run?
16 Q. Okay. But you are asking ...
17 A. This essentially doesn't say that, because she goes on to

18 say Awhen she is outside the residence and not in the escape-proof
19 enclosure that the dog, Brindi should be muzzled.@
20 Q. Okay, but I am talking about up above there. Because you
21 are claiming that Ms. ...

422
1 A. Well, you know, that that's the problem right there.
2 Q. Ms. Rogier, if you could just let me finish.
3 THE COURT: Just listen to the question, please.
4 MS. SALSMAN: So, at the top of the page, there. You have been
5 claiming that when in the car, Brindi was in an escape-proof
6 enclosure, is that right?

7 A. As was Miss Jordan.
8 Q. Okay, and so, but it says that when Brindi was outdoors
9 she shall be muzzled at all times “and” inside an escape-proof
10 enclosure. Would you agree with that?
11 A. And I don't think it's the intention, and I don't think
12 that that has any logic, in fact, that the following paragraph
13 contradicts.
14 Q. Okay, so you think that her decision is illogical?
15 A. As I said, I made efforts to get this clarified. “Or when
16 Brindi is outside the residence and not in the escape-proof
17 enclosure that she be muzzled.” This is contradicting what comes

18 above. The wording of the paragraph above is identical to what it
19 says in A300 order and in the law except for the word Aand@. As we
20 see there is ...
21 Q. You say that you tried to get clarified.

423
1 A. I ... as I said also I didn't see that it was healthy or
2 necessary. Why would there be a need to approve the enclosure by
3 HRM? Why would there be a need for an enclosure? It just simply
4 isn't rational. And that is not a risk that I would be taking and
5 not making due diligence. It can't be depicted in that way by any
6 ... in way, shape or form. So I don't agree that suggestion that

7 the Crown is now making to imply that I somehow was irresponsible
8 by not following the word to ... the letter of a text that already
9 is seen to have some slip-ups here and there, that that means in any
10 way, that I am negligent, and that I'm not willing or able to follow
11 the muzzle order. And I think everything ...
12 Q. So, Ms. Rogier, essentially you thought that the muzzle
13 order ...
14 A. ... is to the contrary.
15 Q. Listen to the question.
16 A. I hadn't finished.
17 Q. So you thought that the muzzle order was irrational and

18 unclear, so you did nothing ...
19 A. Not the entire muzzle order. I am stating that the
20 assumption that this is what it translates to that you are suggesting,
21 that your interpretation of it would be irrational. That is as far

424
1 as it goes.
2 Q. Okay, and you said you tried to get clarification to that.
3 Could you point us to the point in the transcript, thereafter, where
4 she gives her order, where you asked for clarification?
5 A. The fact, no, I didn't do it that day. I never said when
6 I did it. I tried to do it in subsequent days. There was a lot to

7 take in and I was trying to clarify here what the training condition,
8 exactly what was meant by it, and how that would work. And it was
9 unique, as far as I know, and as you see that, I did that. I talked
10 about the completion, I was most interested in getting my dog out
11 because she had been locked up for so long.
12 Q. So, at the time ...
13 A. And I realized that this is something that was the major
14 condition. That was the more pressing matter at the time. I did
15 immediately, though, in the days that followed and weeks that
16 followed, as things continued, seek to clarify. I asked the Judge,
17 I think I even sent her a fax, and I was promised a hearing, anyhow,
18 with the trainer, so that we would be before the Judge and that that
19 would be my opportunity to clarify this.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And I took responsibility for this. I also agree that,

425
1 you know, it is not clear. There are two interpretations. I do know
2 that the judge, herself, relieved an owner in my presence in this
3 courtroom, in another courtroom in this building, of the need and
4 his name is Mr. Wardell (sp?). I have that case here. That she
5 relieved him of the need to muzzle the dog on the property, although
6 they did not have a fenced enclosure at all. And this was because
7 she resolved a discrepancy between the muzzle order wording and the
8 by-law. And holding the by-law up against the muzzle order wording.
9 As that dog had not had ... had actually gone and done much, extensive
10 damage which required hundreds and hundreds of dollars of vet bills.
11 Q. Okay, Your Honour, she is going on about some other dog.
12 It's not relevant.
13 A. That is my reasoning, Your Honour.
15 MS. SALSMAN: That's not relevant.
16 A. I believe that that would hold up in a court of law.
17 Q. Okay. So you own a muzzle for Brindi, I assume?

18 A. I own two muzzles for Brindi.
19 Q. Okay, and what do they look like?
20 A. They are basket muzzles.
21 Q. What colour are they?

426
1 A. I have a picture. They are tan. I have a picture. I
2 think I showed the first day, a picture, not that, no. Would you
3 like to see a photograph of it?
4 Q. Sure.
5 A. I don't know if I ... exactly, what you are looking for.
6 See if do.
7 Q. I would like ...
8 THE COURT: Oh, it wasn't an exhibit. Oh, it is an exhibit,
9 Exhibit 7.
10 MS. SALSMAN: Yes, that's the ...
11 MS. ROGIER: That's the animal control...
12 THE COURT: This one was from ... exhibited by the Crown.
13 MS. ROGIER: I don't know if I have any more left ...
14 MS. SALSMAN: Okay.
15 MS. ROGIER: I don't know, but the Crown could have requested
16 this. I do have extensive photographs, and they are online with her
17 in it.
18 MS. SALSMAN: Well, we don't need the photograph, can you just
19 describe ...
20 THE COURT: You can just describe it. We don‟t need ...
21 MS. ROGIER: It's just a basket muzzle. It's tan. It's

427
1 like a tan colour. It's some of the colours on her face, they are
2 really kind of the same.
3 THE COURT: Is this a basket muzzle?
4 MS. ROGIER: No, ma'am. That, Your Honour, I believe is a
5 temporary.
6 THE COURT: Temporary plastic one, right.

7 MS. ROGIER: That‟s not the thing that she wears, no.
8 THE COURT: You can just return to the stand, you can just
9 describe what it looks like.
10 MS. ROGIER: I don't know any other way than to say that it's
11 around, goes around her face.
12 THE COURT: Okay, what materials, for instance, ma‟am?
13 MS. ROGIER: It's plastic. It has openings. It's a basket
14 shape because that's what they call it.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MS. SALSMAN: So, when you say basket, that means there is
17 like, spaces throughout the plastic?

18 A. It's a very secure muzzle. And it's used everywhere and
19 it was approved B
20 Q. So it provides complete protection to ensure another dog
21 wouldn't be bitten when it's on Brindi?

428
2 Q. Okay, and was that the muzzle that you were using on
3 September 14?
4 A. Yes, of course.
5 Q. And, that's I believe in your conversation with Ms. Steen,
6 you say, AMuzzle on, muzzle off. Muzzle on, muzzle off.@ And that's
7 when you were taking it on and off that day?
8 A. No, actually I wasn't taking it on and off. We were in
9 and out of the car all day. I was taking it off when she was left
10 in the car where she could end up getting tangled up and needed to
11 get to water because it was very hot. I was in a state of extreme
12 duress, as has been said. I don't know what I was saying half the
13 time. So, I don't think it's fair to be analyzing that too closely
14 as a way to establish guilt.
15 Q. So, when you said, AMuzzle on, muzzle off. Muzzle on,
16 muzzle off,@ that didn't mean anything?
17 A. I know that I go inside things, outside things. I, you

18 know, it's been over two years. I can't even accurately tell you
19 what was in my head and what I was trying to say. I was in stress.
20 Q. And you took the muzzle off Brindi when you went inside
21 so that she could drink her water?

429
1 A. In this very short-lived shopping visit then, yes.
2 q. Okay. And then when you came back into the car, you didn't
3 put the muzzle back on?
4 A. It was very hot in the car. I didn't want her to be
5 uncomfortable, as I said, I regard, and so does my trainer, this car
6 is a confined enclosure. It was not my intention that she would be

7 able to get out of the window, and every other time, for the previous
8 two and a half months, when the window was open, she would have her
9 muzzle on. There would be no problem. But she was never allowed
10 to escape.
11 Q. Okay, you say she couldn‟t breathe. But it is like ...
12 Most of the muzzle is open space, is that's right? It‟s open ...
13 A. I ... I don't know that the mu ... Why is the muzzle an
14 issue?
15 Q. You are being charged with not complying with the muzzle
16 order. That's what the muzzle order ...
17 A. The ... I am familiar with the charges. I don't know what

18 you are getting at exactly.
19 Q. I am asking if the dog could breathe, why the dog couldn't
20 breathe with its muzzle on if the muzzle was mostly open space?
21 A. It‟s not ... Of course, it's not mostly open space.

430
1 It's a close, you know, there are very small openings around that.
2 And a very hot day. It's actually a very close fitting around the
3 top of the nose and all around. And it‟s ... if a dog is panting,
4 as Ms. Jordan said, they can't pant very comfortably in this muzzle
5 for long periods. So that it is actually better to take the muzzle
6 off, especially if they are in a car, which is a confined space.

7 Q. Okay, and you had a leash with you that day, I assume?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. Okay, and you were putting it on Brindi any time you left
10 the car?
11 A. The ... no, actually the thing that I did, and this is going
12 to raise, I am sure a big kerfuffle, and you something, I don't really
13 care anymore, because this is such a farce, okay. I think this is
14 a total farce, that you are trying to establish guilt. The fact is
15 that you had enough to establish guilt on a charge like this, before
16 I arrived on February 2 ... on March 2nd.
17 Q. Just answer my question.

18 MS. ROGIER: I am objecting to the questioning, Your Honour,
19 because the questioning is unnecessary at this time. It's
20 absolutely superfluous. There are other witness accounts. I have
21 already admitted that these incidents happened.

431
1 THE COURT: Okay, what was the question? Just put the
2 question to the witness again.
3 MS. SALSMAN: The question was whether she was putting the
4 leash on Brindi when she left the car.
5 THE COURT: Okay, I think that's a very relevant question.
6 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, the reason that I am going to say

7 this is because the prosecution is seeking every opportunity to try
8 to depict me in bad light, and they have done that from the
9 minute ...
10 THE COURT: No, but you can just answer the question. It
11 was a simple question.
12 MS. ROGIER: The reasoning, and this was clear is that my dog
13 actually, the best way to control my dog is with a gentle leader.
14 THE COURT: Are you not going to answer the question?
15 MS. ROGIER: I am answering the question right now.
16 THE COURT: Well, answer the question.
17 MS. ROGIER: Is with a gentle leader. I am getting to it ...

18 THE COURT: When you were taking Brindi out of the car, in
19 the night in question, did you have a leash on her? That's the
20 question.
21 MS. ROGIER: I wasn't taking her out of the car, actually.

432
1 She escaped through an opening that I didn't realize was open enough
2 for her to escape.
3 MS. SALSMAN: But other times in that day.
4 A. And, so at time, I didn‟t ... when I take her out of the
5 car myself I usually leash her. That's exactly why she got up. The
6 thing is, that the leash and muzzle were attached so that they would
7 work as a gentle leader. And I wish I had brought them. If had known
8 this was going to be an issue, after all this time, I certainly would
9 have gladly brought them. It was a better way to work with her
10 because a gentle leader attaches to the dog's snout, And a dog, with
11 any kind of issues, you know, that you want to control better, is
12 much better to control with a gentle leader from the snout. They
13 cannot pull as hard as they can, if you have a leash around, that's
14 on their collar. And that is why prior to the muzzle order, I would
15 use a gentle leader with her. None of the incidents that happen,
16 I would like to point out, that ever were reported, you know, that
17 lead to the muzzle order and so on, involve this question of the leash
18 because she was escaping off leash.
19 The muzzle ... the best combination would be to attach the
20 leash to the muzzle. I discovered that it worked beautifully. And
21 that was the reason why she was off leash, because when I took the
433
1 muzzle off, she was also off leash. And that was, again, I explained
2 in detail how this ride home happened, and how she escaped at that
3 point. And my concerns for her comfort and her health, and my belief,
4 my firm belief, that the window was only open two inches. So I was
5 not deliberately taking unsafe risks, or anything of the kind.
6 Q. Okay, so let's go on to that. You thought the window was

7 only open two inches. The window was directly behind, would have
8 been your left ear, and is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you were driving along the East Chezzetcook Road?
11 A. Yes, I was.
12 Q. What is the speed limit on that road?
13 A. I suppose its 50 kilometres an hour.
14 Q. Okay, and so you would have been able to hear the wind
15 rushing out of the window behind you.
16 A. No, I usually play the radio.
17 Q. Okay, so you had the radio up so loud that you couldn't

18 even hear the window is open?
19 A. I don't think that 50 kilometres an hour is actually very
20 fast, that you would even hear wind. And I don't think that you can
21 establish that it was a loud radio. I just know that I didn't hear
434
1 wind and I didn't ... I could hear things over the radio, and I don't
2 normally hear wind from two inches opening behind me, that I am going
3 down that slowly. That's 35 miles an hour. That's a very slow
4 speed.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. If I was on the highway, I would have heard it.

7 Q. Okay, and when you pushed the window, when you thought you
8 were putting it up, but you were actually putting it down, did you
9 then look behind you just to see what happened to the window?
10 A. I tried. Yes, in fact, I tried to do that. It's difficult
11 to do it while you are driving. And, I did do that, and I saw nothing.
12 So I cannot say that I didn't try. I did do that. I only actually
13 did the adjustment to the window, believe it or not within a mile
14 of my home.
15 Q. Okay. And you thought you were putting it up. So it must
16 have been more than two inches down earlier, is that right?
17 A. I thought that I was putting it up as I drove. It wasn't

18 more than that. Actually, the whole way home frankly ... Let me
19 correct that, it's been two years. Okay, I don't think it's
20 reasonable to expect ... but I know that I struggled with those ...
21 I was struggling all afternoon with these window operation keys.

435
1 There was always a problem, even with my own window, and so on, even
2 to this day. To get to the right window control, like when you go
3 to do your own window, and it's up and down, or something and you
4 invariably end up with the others, and I had been actually, you know,
5 a series of things were happening to go up and down and I can't say
6 with any accuracy, I know that the last adjustment I made I didn't
7 rule out any others. I said the last adjustment I made was within
8 a mile of my home. So there was probably a time on the road when
9 it was maybe an inch more than that, I don't know. And I don't think
10 it's of relevance here.
11 Q. Okay, so you ...
12 A. The fact is that I have already admitted to you that by
13 accident, that this window was open enough so that my dog could
14 escape. That establishes the situation and establishes that the
15 incident happened, and that's more than enough, I think, to establish
16 guilt. I really feel at this point that this is not necessary.
17 Q. Okay, well, I am not quite done yet. So, Ms. Rogier, what
18 you said was, you previously testified that you thought that the
19 window was only open by about two inches.
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. And you also testified that before that, you had pressed
436
1 a button thinking you were putting the window up, is that right?
2 A. And it could have been. You know, each time I touched the
3 button, I don't know exactly, I couldn't say with any certainty.
4 THE COURT: Could you put your papers down, please, ma'am.
5 Just listen to the questions, you are fidgeting away there. It's
6 very distracting.
8 MS. SALSMAN: So, you ... but just ...am I correct that you
9 previously said that you had hit the button thinking you were putting
10 the window up?
11 A. And it could have been that the way along the road before
12 that, it might have been that I made a couple of other adjustments
13 and it was up to high, and that it was down and I didn't know. And
14 I was trying very hard to do this, and it was a very, very short ride.
15 And so in the end it wouldn't have been possible to trace exactly
16 how many times I would have hit the button, or many how many times
17 I would have tried to do it. I was simply trying to get home and
18 I had been having a long day and I wanted to be in my home.
19 Q. Okay, so you don't know if you were trying to put the window
20 up?
21 A. Excuse me?
437
1 MS. SALSMAN: So you don't know if you were trying to put the
2 window up?
3 A. I know that it was not my intention that the window would
4 be open any more than two inches. And that I adjusted it as I thought
5 it was in the right position. And it was a brand new car. If it
6 had been my old car, this would have never happened. But I just
7 bought this car that day. I have explained that.
8 Q. Okay, did the car that you buy that day have air
9 conditioning?
10 A. You know, it does, but the fact is that it was a warm day,
11 but I didn't want to use the air conditioning, I didn't want to use
12 up the gas, and that was my choice. And an air conditioner is not
13 enough to ... when a dog has been cooped up in a car for a lot of
14 the day, they need more than that. They need some airflow as was
15 stated earlier. And it's healthier for them than air conditioning.
16 Q. So why did you bring Brindi to go grocery shopping that
17 day if you weren't even going to bring her out of the car?
18 A. I wasn't going grocery ... I was coming home. I explained
19 that I had gone to the Valley on a long trip to go buy this car with
20 a friend who drove me there and then I bought the car, and drove the
21 car home for the first time. And on the way home I stopped for
438
1 groceries. And I always, by the way, was in the habit of bringing
2 Brindi everywhere. And I was socializing her so that was a very
3 important thing.
4 Q. Okay. So basically you never dreamed that Brindi would
5 try and jump out that back window?
6 A. I never thought that she could get out anything, you know,
7 I never ... First of all, I never dreamed that the window was open
8 for more than two inches, and then when I saw it, I didn't think that
9 she was even able to get, that the opening was only, you know, a couple
10 of inches more, you know, it wasn't even half way. I had no
11 expectation she could have done that, and I think that we are just
12 talking about a case where there was a territorial issue again. That
13 she was not responsive or not reacted earlier in the day in another
14 location to dogs, says in all. And that this is what happens and,
15 as was explained earlier, that in the process of training a dog that
16 there is bound to be setbacks, that this doesn't indicate anything
17 in terms of seriousness with regard to a statement about the dog's

18 trainability or the owner's willingness and ability.
19 It's a moment that simply happens and I think everyone can relate
20 to things when they are not able to be in control. It's not fair
21 to conclude, that they are always unwilling, and always unable and
439
1 I don't think there is any time that I haven't been willing. And
2 I think the moments have been confined to very few that I was somehow
3 momentarily unable.
4 Q. Okay, and let's move on. Your property borders on the East
5 Chezzetcook Road, is that right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. There are no sidewalks on that road?
8 A. This is a wide‟ish shoulder and it is identical to the
9 gravel in my driveway.
10 Q. Okay, and so the gravel makes basically the border between
11 the grass and the road.
12 A. No, the road is the road and the grass is the grass. I
13 don't understand what you are saying.
14 Q. So as a border between the two of them there‟s the gravel.
15 A. It's not a border, it's a space.
16 Q. Sure. In the space between the two there is the gravel.
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And you were pulling into your driveway that day, and was
19 your old car still in the driveway?
20 A. Yes, it was. In fact, it was the front ...
21 Q. So it was partly blocking your way into the driveway that

440
1 day?
2 A. Well, all the doors of the car were on my property,
3 actually. It is a wagon, so it's a little longer than most.
4 Q. Okay. And so your old car was fully on the property but
5 when you pulled in, you couldn't get you own car in all the way onto
6 your property, is that right?

7 A. As I said, only the rear portion where there is no doors,
8 were ... but actually it was on the shoulder. It was not on the
9 pavement. The car was actually safely off the road. If that's what
10 you're asking? It was definitely ... I have actually pulled it in
11 at an angle so that I would have room to get it off the road.
12 Q. Okay, and you said when you were driving down, you noticed
13 the dog there at the side of the road.
14 A. Not until actually a second, literally like a second before
15 I ... it was like this. I was right in front of my house with the
16 car that they appeared. That two people and a dog appeared. There
17 was very little time to think. And, in fact, it just somehow ...
18 just the sight sort of, you know, I just turned in and that was the
19 most that I could do, and I got, you know, off the road and I was
20 home.
21 Q. Okay. And, that's when you saw Brindi wiggling out the
441
1 window behind you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And you were able to sort of see that out of the
4 periphery of your vision?
5 A. I was aware of movement and I turned my head.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. One is aware sometimes of movement that is close to you,
8 that's how I did that.
9 Q. Okay, when you turned your head and you saw Brindi going
10 out the window?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. And that's when you opened the car door and got out. Were
13 you on the same side of the car that Brindi had just left.
14 A. Yes, as we said.
15 Q. So you got out of the car and immediately went over to them,
16 or did you have to go around the car?
17 A. No, they were actually to the left of the car from where
18 I was facing. They were closer down as I pointed in that photo. The
19 thing is that there has been a lot of landscaping since then on my
20 property and I don't think that it is easy now to explain what things
21 were like then. To, you know, any kind of degree of clarity.
442
1 Q. Okay, so that ...
2 A. But I can tell you that were behind the car, and they were
3 actually directly behind the car and to the left. I could see Brindi
4 getting out and it probably, I was opening my door and out before
5 she hit the ground. So I was right after her.
6 Q. Okay, and so sorry, you said there was landscaping, so that

7 photograph that you introduced as an exhibit, is that before or after
8 the landscaping.
9 A. It's now. And the driveway was in a similar position to
10 that when it was then.
11 Q. Okay, but it doesn't otherwise show your property as it
12 was on the date of the offence?
13 A. It shows the relationship of the gravel, though. It is
14 exactly the same.
15 Q. Okay. And would you agree that Lucy, the dog that Brindi
16 ran at, is a smaller dog than Brindi?
17 A. You know, that's something that I am not sure about.

18 Because, frankly, the photographs that I have seen, she looks very
19 close to Brindi's size. I don't think that there is a very big
20 difference in their sizes at all. I don't know if the vet report
21 indicates, how ... what she weights. Does it?

443
1 Q. Well, it would, if I told you that ...
2 A. Because I would say that she is a very large beagle. If
3 she is a beagle mix, I didn't have the impression that she was
4 significantly smaller than Brindi.
5 Q. Okay. And while the fight was going on, was Brindi on top
6 of Lucy?
7 A. As I stated, they were in movement and they were sort of
8 like a pinwheel. I never saw Brindi on top. I never saw the other
9 dog on top. That's all I saw, and I reached in. I have been trained
10 by Bob Ottenbrite and his trainers that if there are two dogs about
11 to fight, that the best thing that you can do is get between them,
12 which is counterintuitive, but works. And, I have no fear of
13 getting to my dog, and I have no fear that my dog is going to bite
14 me. So I go and I make sure to remove her as quickly as possible,
15 which has, you know, I don't know about bite ... now I understand
16 about bite inhibition but I was definitely interested in ending any
17 fights as quickly as possible and it was in every instance myself

18 that separated the dogs and took them to safety.
19 Q. Okay. And, sorry, so when you called ... you called
20 Michelle that night. You called the call centre, is that correct?
21 A. That's right.
444
1 Q. But it wasn‟t actually you that placed the call, it was
2 Bob Riley, is that right?
3 A. No. I called her from my home, I believe, I don‟t even
4 ... what time was it. I don't even remember now.
5 Q. But at the beginning of the phone call, I believe the
6 transcript shows that at first it was Bob Riley asking for Michelle
7 Steen, and then he handed the phone to you?
8 A. Is that the first call?
9 Q. Yeah.
10 A. I don't recall now. But I would have to look.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I wanted to make sure that it was Michelle, as I said, you
13 know. The thing that I have to say about that is actually now that
14 you raised it, in fact, Michelle testified that I called frequently
15 to the call centre and no one else wanted to talk to me. And that's
16 actually not true at all. I only called when she indicated that she
17 was on shift, and it was very, very infrequently. So at that time

18 was one of the only times when I actually wanted to talk to her, and
19 wasn't sure if she was working, and I just wanted to make sure I would
20 get a trusted person to tell me whether or not a report had been filed.
21 As you can see, that sort of demonstrates it. I didn't call

445
1 to make a report. I didn't call to make a false report. I wasn't
2 even thinking about that. I was calling to find out if these people
3 were going to make a report. I didn't know who they are were. I was
4 trying to think about what I could do to talk to them. I think that
5 since the law had ... I had spent a good deal of money and time at
6 the expense of my dog's health and mine to change a law, and that
7 I had made every effort to ensure that she was being trained and I
8 was doing all I could to keep her out of any trouble. That that would
9 be a fair thing to do, to reach an understanding with them. I didn't
10 know who they were and they had told me that their dog was okay.
11 Q. Okay, so that night you called Michelle and you were very
12 upset. And that's, you say, why it is that you ...
13 A. Can I ask what the Crown is pursuing here? Exactly what
14 is trying to be done, may I know that?
15 THE COURT: Are you objecting to the question? Just repeat
16 the question, please.
17 MS. SALSMAN: I was ...

18 MS. ROGIER: Just the line of questioning.
19 MS. SALSMAN: ...just going over what she had said before
20 about being very upset when Michelle Steen ... when she spoke to
21 Michelle Steen that evening?

446
1 THE COURT: That was in your testimony.
2 MS. ROGIER: Yes.
3 THE COURT: You‟ve already testified to that.
4 MS. ROGIER: ... and I think it's clear.
5 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, so you say that was the only reason that
6 you filed that report which you now admit was not true.
7 A. I did not feel that it would make a big difference what
8 I did, because I was certain that the City was going to do everything
9 that it could to come after me and my dog, again. And I think the
10 facts have borne that out to this day.
11 Q. Okay, but you did file a report saying that this other dog
12 had, in fact, attacked your dog, is that right?
13 A. And with some uncertainty and a lot of regret since, I say,
14 and also that much of the wording was done by Michelle, herself. She
15 sort of, you know, we talked it over. She actually entered it. She
16 actually edited it, and she reported it. And she was not aware, I
17 want to say also, that at the time, the Simms had filed a report around
18 9:00, or something like that, or 8:00, and what had happened that
19 night was that for some reason they did not contact dispatch. They
20 called the RCMP. They were told by some other agency or something,
21 that they could not call.

447
1 Q. Okay, you are going into what you have heard from other
2 people now, but ...
3 A. That was in the phone, the RCMP investigation.
4 Q. Right. Okay, and you say that you did it because you were
5 upset? You were aware that in the past when someone had made a
6 complaint against your dog, your dog had ended up being seized, is
7 that right?
8 A. Actually, my dog was seized without me being aware that
9 there was a report.
10 Q. No. But you were aware that previously when you dog had
11 had been seized it was because of someone making a complaint that
12 your dog had attacked their dog, is that right?
13 A. And, yes, obviously.
14 Q. And so you were aware that when you made that complaint
15 that you were putting the Simms at risk of having their dog seized?
16 A. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I had very much, if you look at
17 the prosecution charts that are maintained online, I was not at all
18 concerned that they were going to end up having their dog seized,
19 no.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And I think that's also borne out by the facts.

448
1 Q. And then you filed a signed statement with Animal Control
2 on October 1, 2010, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes, the entire week, the entire time actually, several
4 weeks after that, I was ... there was no way for me to know what to
5 do, who to turn to, and what would be the best line of attack. And,
6 yes, I did that. I don't know if there is, I do know that, in

7 connection with that and in connection with these recordings that
8 came to light which were down without the knowledge or consent of
9 either party, which I think we established this morning. The RCMP
10 conducted apparently a lengthy investigation. I assume because ...
11 Q. Okay, that wasn't my question, Ms. Rogier.
12 A. Okay, well.
13 Q. I was asking you if you made a statement to Animal Services
14 on October 1, 2010.
15 A. Yes, I think there is no need to ask because it is existing.
16 Q. Okay. And in that statement you essentially said the same
17 things that you had said in your telephone statement, is that right?
18 A. Yes. That's right. And I had discussed that.
19 Q. And did Michelle Steen essentially put the words down for
20 that statement, as well?
21 A. I followed what she did.

449
1 Q. Okay, so you filed that statement, yourself.
2 A. But I followed the words that she put down.
3 Q. Right. But you filed that one yourself.
4 A. I did say that, yes. And that was prior to the full
5 knowledge of what was happening. I do know that the extent to which
6 this thing was pursued is excessive with the ... you know, to the
7 point that the RCMP in the following week seem to have conducted
8 interviews with both of the Simms, Lloyd Pettipas, and Michelle
9 Steen, who has to be said, contradicts some of hers, I don't know
10 if you have entered that. I can enter it, if it's possible that she,
11 in fact, gives a slightly different account to testimony she made
12 to you on March 2, when I wasn't here in the voir dire, which I wasn't
13 here, as well, for, and she slightly varies the story a little bit
14 about that and she tries to give a even more different impression.
15 But that was conducted, I was never questioned, I was never contacted
16 by the RCMP. And, therefore, I can only conclude that whatever they
17 decided or came up with, lead them to decide that there was no charges
18 to be laid.
19 Q. Okay, so previously you had done some ... you said that
20 you originally did some training with Bob Ottenbrite.
21 A. I completed their first obedience course. I was also,

450
1 well, I had to go onto a, what's it called? Another time kind of
2 thing, because they go through hoops, they go through up and down,
3 they go stairs ...
4 Q. Okay, and when did you complete that?
5 A. No, I began that, and she was seized.
6 Q. Okay, so the first training that you ever did with Brindi,
7 I thought you said you had completed a training course?
8 A. Yes, we did. At Cole Harbour Place, we did the obedience
9 course.
10 Q. Okay, and when did that one begin?
11 A. I think it was in July or August of '07 and it was eight
12 weeks.
13 Q. Okay, so it would have been over the summer and over by
14 the end of August, 2007?
15 A. I can't say for sure.
16 Q. But around that?
17 A. Around then.
18 Q. At the end of 2007, at the very least.
19 A. Well, if you look at, it was about a week before the first
20 incident was reported.
21 Q. Okay. And after that, that was when Brindi was seized and
451
1 then once she was released to you in 2010, that's when you, both prior
2 to and after her release, that's when you were doing your training
3 with Susan Jordan, is that right?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. And you devoted quite a bit of time to that training, is
6 that right? And, you did with the first training, as well. You
7 devoted quite a bit of time to Brindi's training?
8 A. And I think we had excellent results.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. It was unfortunate, as I said, that this behaviour ... I
11 did consult trainers that they all just initially minimized it.
12 There was ... I was absolutely seeking good advice and help and I
13 would have done whatever Bob Ottenbrite had said to do. Actually,
14 and I think he could probably agree with that, despite, you know
15 whatever has happened. But that I ... he suggested it was agility
16 training. He suggested agility training, which you know, since then
17 there are difference opinions about that in terms of a dog that's

18 territorial. So I did do that, though.
19 Q. Okay, so that's actually three different types of training
20 you list, two that you fully completed and one that you didn‟t.
21 A. The ... the first course that we went to was very similar
452
1 to what Susan Jordan did. So there is not really three types.
2 Q. Not three types, but three times.
3 A. Yes, separated by a big long period in between, like two
4 years.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. But during that time, I would, with regard to training,

7 if I may. I will tell you that when I first saw Brindi after six
8 months, the day after the ruling, her behaviour and her appearance
9 and her condition, were drastically altered while she was at the SPCA.
10 First of all, she was in very filthy condition. Secondly, she was
11 incredibly agitated and she was demanding treats, for even just
12 sitting, which she had not been doing. I had trained her so that
13 we were way beyond that. And she nearly knocked me down. And then
14 over ... it took four months later that I actually got permission
15 from HRM to have a half an hour a week with her, where I wouldn't
16 be able to walk. But we were spending time in the yard. I took 15
17 minutes out of every one of those visits to teach Brindi again, to

18 not jump. And that took about three 15-minute week, you know,
19 separated by week times. I taught her ... I reviewed all of her
20 obedience classes, lessons, every time I was with her. And that was
21 followed, it was half an hour a week for eight months. I made sure
453
1 that I was there every time. Sometimes it wasn‟t possible to be there
2 on time, but I did it, and I made sure that she understood that this
3 is what I expected of her. I did observe that sometimes she was with
4 other volunteers and they were not able to handle exactly as I did.
5 But she was also very obedient with them. And they all, as you see
6 in the photograph, seem to have fallen in love with her during that
7 time, and were even, there was people saying that it was mean of me
8 to take her away.
9 Q. So I think it would be fair to day that you really don't
10 think that Brindi is a dangerous dog?
11 A. I have said from the start that she seems to have a streak
12 of territoriality that seems out of character. I began saying that
13 today. That seems to be out of character, doesn't mean that I know
14 anything more than any other dog owner, but I observed that. She
15 ... it seemed to be something that surprised the trainers, as she
16 was so good with training. We really ... you know, I worked very
17 hard with her, but it's also because she is trainable that this was
18 so, we are able to pass that course. It's a very challenging course.
19 I think the Simms mentioned that they started the Ottenbrite class,
20 but they did not finish it. Because it is really challenging, I was
21 determined that Brindi would be just as well behaved as Howard, who

454
1 is a much larger dog that I had before this. And, he could go anywhere
2 and he could be off leash and he was even deaf, and we had sign signals
3 and things, and I just wanted to not have to worry that my dog would
4 be jumping on anybody, that my dog would be going after other dogs.
5 That my dog would be any kind of problem, that's why I put in so much
6 time for the first year and beyond, so that I would be able to be
7 assured of that myself.
8 Q. Okay, but you feel that the issues with Brindi are somewhat
9 overblown, that you really have been targeted, rather than it being
10 a legitimate issue?
11 A. You know, is there a reason for this question?
12 Q. Yes, there is.
13 A. Um, I think that is hard to say that it isn't true that
14 this has been an excessive amount of and a very unorthodox way of
15 actually proceeding with enforcement. I think that the fact that
16 I was not notified of a report, but that a decision was made to make
17 a muzzle order is out of the line of the policy. I know that for
18 a fact. I also know that Tim Hamm, who was fired after, actually
19 before Brindi got out, turned and sent me an email, which you probably
20 aware of.
21 Q. That's hearsay.
455
1 A. Well, it is published and so he hasn't refuted it, that
2 he does not agree with Ms. Scolaro ...
3 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour ...
4 A. ... Ms. MacDonald.
5 THE COURT:: Yes, that is ...that's fine.
6 MS. ROGIER: So that he also shared the opinion that I

7 have ...
8 THE COURT: It will be given no weight. As hearsay, I can't
9 give it any weight.
10 MS. ROGIER: Well that's too bad, because it's the truth.
11 MS. SALSMAN: Okay, but the question ...
12 MS. ROGIER: ... and it‟s relevant.
13 MS. SALSMAN: ...for you, that I asked you though, Ms. Rogier,
14 was if you think that people are unfairly targeting you or, do you
15 think that there actually is a legitimate problem with Brindi?
16 A. I wouldn't say people.
17 Q. Do you think HRM is unfairly targeting ...

18 A. I have said that I think there is a legitimate problem with
19 her, yes. And I have said also that I think I am being ... I think
20 the way we have been treated doesn't match up to the way anyone else
21 has been treated.

456
1 Q. Okay. Do you think it is a serious problem?
2 A. I certainly do because it's lead to the fact that I have
3 been evicted from my home, as well. And the timing and so on...
4 Q. No, the problem with Brindi.
5 A. With Brindi? I agree with Susan Jordan. I certainly
6 can't speak as an expert. Susan Jordan is saying that she was mild
7 to moderate, and that would be the first level, the lowest level
8 rather on the ladder of aggression. I was pleased to hear that this
9 morning, and I was, in fact, that was the first time I even saw that.
10 But that was always my impression, because I know that Brindi was
11 very good in so many instances, even when children would come running
12 directly at her from across the yard next door. She sat calmly, she
13 didn't lick them. She didn't paw them. She didn't jump and she
14 didn't run and she was very, very well behaved and it was a natural
15 thing.
16 Whatever has happened with the streak that's territorial may
17 or not be related to her time when she was on a reserve when dogs,
18 as I understand it, don't live the way they do with people in this
19 kind of community. They actually may not even be living inside a
20 house and they may run in packs or they may not. And they may have
21 a different kind of relationship to their territory. Whether it's

457
1 true or not, I can't say. I just think that it has to be understood
2 from the point of view of dog behaviour, to really be able to answer.
3 And I am not an expert on it.
4 Q. Okay. And so what I am getting from you then is you think
5 it is a mild to moderate issue. It's not a serious issue.
6 A. I cannot, what I think is what I am advised, and what I

7 think is based also on my research about dog behaviour, about the
8 prosecutions of dogs because I see how dogs are prosecuted for various
9 things and the degree and level and severity of incidents in HRM.
10 And I think that there is a factual basis on my opinion to say that
11 there are very, very many cases that involve much more severe
12 behaviour by dogs, including fatalities as Valerie Rodger says.
13 Q. I am not asking about other dogs. I am asking about this,
14 this dog.
15 A. If you are asking me something like that. You‟re asking
16 me to compare her. There has to be a context. I can't just
17 independently rate her, if I don't also know what the context is,
18 how do you base anything.
19 Q. I am not saying ... I am not asking you to rate her compared
20 to other dogs, I am just asking if you believe that there is a serious
21 problem with Brindi's behaviour?

458
1 A. Serious is a qualifier. You need to have some kind of a
2 standard and that's what I am saying that for. I believe mild to
3 moderate. I agree with Susan Jordan.
4 Q. Okay, because you referred to on numerous occasions just
5 as sort of a justification, that there has never been a serious injury
6 to another dog.
7 A. I think that's your interpretation.
8 Q. So that's incorrect?
9 A. I think your interpretation is that it's a justification.
10 I didn't mean that. What I say ... what I mean when I say that is
11 that I don't understand what the response, why the response has been
12 so harsh.
13 Q. Okay, so you don't think it's a serious problem if there
14 is not serious injuries.
15 A. I‟m not saying that it‟s not ... I wouldn't say that it's
16 not important. But in think serious injury, when you say that, would
17 to me, in my mind, serious injury would require actual medical

18 treatment beyond first-aid. And first-aid is the extent to which
19 these injuries, which have been on two occasions, required any
20 treatment. And there is even a question as to whether a dog needs
21 treatment with the kind of very sort of, not really muscle tears,
459
1 they are very lightweight things. But I don't excuse them and I think
2 that I have demonstrated with, what has happened in each case, that
3 I am very concerned and I think that the witnesses also bore that
4 out. I am very, very concerned when there is any incident and the
5 first thing I do is remove my dog and instantly go back and see how
6 the other dog is. And they are always very, very troubling to me
7 and I feel very responsible and I do all I can to make sure they don't
8 happen.
11 THE COURT: All right. Thanks very much, you may return to
12 the desk there, Ms. Rogier. All right. I am just looking at the
13 time, all right. So I know that this has been a bit unusual, the
14 procedure, but I think it was important to allow Ms. Rogier to testify
15 when she requested to do so. You have summed up. I am wondering,
16 Ms. Rogier if you would wish to sum up at this time or you may do
17 it in...
18
19
20
21
460
SUBMISSIONS BY MS. ROGIER
1 SUBMISSIONS BY MS. ROGIER
3 MS. ROGIER: Well, Your Honour, I want to thank you for
4 allowing me to take the stand. And I hope that that has clarified
5 any doubts or issues in your mind, I think and in the public's mind,
6 because you know I prefer to stay with the truth and I have been
7 truthful most of my life, apart from probably a few moments and I
8 was even told by my lawyer Blair Mitchell, that I am probably too
9 honest. And you know, truer words are never spoken in that regard.
10 But, I think that, you know, I do love my dog. And I love dogs.
11 And I love animals and I am a vegetarian, I don't eat animals. And
12 I think that it's important to understand and I think that the law
13 has a responsibility, as well, and a benefit to the society that it
14 is functioning in, that it adjusts things that are measured.
15 And when I read up about Canadian law, which I have done a lot
16 of, more than I would ever thought I would in my life, as an American,
17 I am coming here and I am seeing the parallel. I think that it's

18 very reassuring and very interesting to see how the courts are there
19 in this way to realistically function as a way to balance
20 discrepancies, balance inequities that may arise in every law,
21 whether it's a big, you know the Criminal Code, or the smallest law.
461
1 And that the Provincial Court has the ability to make decisions
2 about constitutionality of laws and so on, is of great interest and
3 I know that there are parallels even in county courts in the states,
4 and I have studied, you know, that there's a case in a county court
5 in Alabama where three dogs attacked a girl, a young girl, and she
6 had to have 150 stitches. The dogs were released purely based on
7 a constitutional argument, Your Honour. There was absolutely no
8 mention in the brief or the ruling, about the actual incidents. That
9 the Constitution prevails against the dog act, the Dangerous Dog Act.
10 That that was something I just ... I can't tell you, how I was just
11 so stunned about it. Because I don't even know if I agree. But,
12 I do know that, that I certainly don't approve of it that it happened.
13 And, on the strength of that, the charges were dropped, and the dogs
14 were returned within six months and so on.
15 So I know that there is a wide range of rulings when it comes
16 to these things. I know that there is also a very moving, flexible
17 target, or so. There is really no standard from town to town, from

18 province to province. So the lack of a really, you know, rigorous
19 standard, and that's reflected in a lack of a rigorous standard
20 actually, or institutional standard for dog trainers. I think Ms.
21 Jordan though was the best dog trainer that I could find. And I have
462
1 no regrets that I worked with her.
2 If I am now to talk about the charges. Am I to understand that
3 correctly?
4 THE COURT: Yes, it's just to sum up...
5 MS. ROGIER: Yeah, Your Honour, then okay...
6 THE COURT: ... your evidence, the defence evidence, as

7 opposed to the Crown's evidence.
8 MS. ROGIER: Okay, I think that, I, you know, I was saying
9 ... I am sorry, I don't mean to talk over you.
10 THE COURT: That's all right.
11 MS. ROGIER: It's hard, and from here, in fact, it's hard to
12 tell when you are finished because the sound just drops right down.
13 I can‟t always ... It's not your fault.
14 THE COURT: Let me know if you can't hear me.
15 MS. ROGIER: That this really, um, here's the thing. I think
16 that when I say things, you know, about that she ... when I stress
17 that she didn't do serious harm, it's because simply I think there
18 is a general public expectation that a dog that would be given a muzzle
19 order had done something out of the norm, that something serious in
20 terms of inflicting harm to earn a muzzle. And that was always my
21 feeling and my understanding as an adult, and all through my life

463
1 and wherever I lived, in fact. Um, and I don't think that's an
2 unreasonable assumption, and I do believe that that's actually part
3 of the problem because people then assume that if she had a muzzle
4 on her, she must have done something grave. And, unfortunately,
5 that's not the case. So and I think that there are factual statements
6 about this. And I think that the real truth is that that muzzle came
7 as a result of a agreement between the woman who owned that dog,
8 Flower, and the Animal Control Officer, Tim Hamm, because she
9 unbeknownst to me, emailed him and asked him not to fine me at all.
10 And, I have the email because it turned up in the disclosure.
11 And she said to him, You know, Francesca doesn't have much money.
12 I don‟t want to ... I want to make sure she pays my vet bill. So
13 in order to not jeopardize the vet bill, instead of asking for a
14 reduced fine, or some other arrangement that Officer Hamm had
15 available to him, he went to, for some reason to the degree to say
16 that you know, What about a muzzle law ... order and he literally
17 asks. The she says, Okay. And she‟s saying, you know, I don't want
18 to walk by the house, and so on. She was later chastised by her
19 children, who were relieved to know that Brindi hasn't been put down
20 or won't be put down.
21 So there is something about that, I think, that is very

464
1 unorthodox. I think it's a little irregular that I wasn't even part
2 of that process, or aware of it, until the day that she was seized,
3 or actually sometime after she was seized, but the muzzle order was
4 in place for a long time before that. So that, you know, it was a
5 shock to me. I could not, and I cannot explain it to this day. I
6 have done so much thinking and so much work to figure out why this
7 muzzle order was really imposed. And the fact that then when she
8 was seized was used as grounds for her seizure, and yet, as I tried
9 to show today, the muzzle order is both a definer of being dangerous
10 and it's an action that can be taken for a dangerous dog. But at
11 the same time, there isn't anything in the law that dictates or
12 requires or even suggests that a dog with a muzzle order who is seen
13 without it, or, is, you know, engaged in any kind of action, any kind
14 of incident, would be instantly seized, which is what Officer Hamm
15 told me the day that he issued the muzzle order and he even handed
16 me a copy of the law, which I sat down and read, and I did not find
17 the ... what he had said in it.

18 So, you know, it was known to me that there was some issues,
19 and I was very careful, but the fact is that this incident happened
20 and I wasn't even part of the investigation, and they took her. And
21 all reasonable attempts, as I said, I made offers of the same exaction

465
1 conditions that took two years to be put in place by a court. I had
2 built the dog run, and I think I was thinking clearly along the same
3 lines of a court, of a judge, and of the trainers, and I consulted
4 extensively.
5 I devoted my life to this. I don't think that's an
6 exaggeration, you know. And just as much as I devoted my life to

7 getting an architecture degree, and a Master‟s Degree in an attempt
8 to finish a PhD. I think this has been a very serious matter for
9 me. And I don't think anyone on this planet understands exactly how
10 much it's been serious to me. Any suggestion that I take things
11 lightly when it comes to this, and when it comes to other dogs, I
12 you know, I refute wholeheartedly and I can only point to the fact
13 that even in the hands of people taking care of her, who aren't under
14 any obligation to develop any kind of ties, that they do.
15 There is a suggestion that says this dog has some value to
16 society. This dog means something, not just to me, but to a lot of
17 people, it turns out, to my surprise. And to those many people, and

18 believe me, Your Honour, they don't just simply hear a few things
19 about this story, and just drop, and are emotional about it, I have
20 been raked over the grills by a lot of people from a lot of places
21 all the way to South Africa. All the way to Singapore, they want
466
1 to know the details, before they decide what to think about it. And,
2 I can say, you know, I tell the same story. I go through the whole
3 thing and it doesn't make any sense to anybody.
4 So, you know, when we have this incident that happened and I
5 explained how it happened against my intentions, and how difficult
6 it has been for me since then, and my concern now that my dog has
7 been locked up again for a year and half, no amendments have been
8 made to the law to make it more just or to avoid a situation like
9 this. That a situation like this has never happened, and that it
10 seems to me in the meantime, in the background, dogs are being
11 surrendered by owners all the time without ... By “all the time”,
12 I mean, you know, 12, 15 of them a year by owners who are not charged,
13 who are somehow made to brought to surrender. I won't say coerced,
14 but I can't help wondering that they turn them over and there is no
15 impartial body or decision-making body involved. There is no
16 expertise involved. It's just on the strength of incidents and
17 attacks. And we see a template applied, as we did this morning, with

18 an attack. An attack is an attack, and the record is the record.
19 And the muzzle order was there, and then there was a muzzle order
20 and then there was something....It's the law to the letter. It's
21 going back to Victor Hugo, >this is what you did, this is the thing.
467
1 But what is happening here is also something else, Your Honour.
2 It is that there is an attachment between this strict liability and
3 the attack to the grave consequences that could happen. And so it's
4 impossible for me to separate that. Because I know, already, my
5 dog's been on death row, I can hardly say I will just wait to see
6 what happens, you know. Because it's absolute certainty the only
7 reason that she is locked up all this time is because there is an
8 intention already in place to put her down.
9 I had some difficulty with the rebuttal of the reply brief
10 because of this, there was a contention there about, it would be
11 inappropriate to decide on a sentence until there is a guilty... In
12 the abstract sense, yes. But in this case, it was stated in October,
13 2010, that there was certainly a prosecutorial intent to put the dog
14 down and that was used as a reason to continue to lock her up, which
15 on the face of it is actually impossible and not within ... consistent
16 within the law.
17 So now I have been struggling all this time. And had a very
18 difficult situation with regard to Michelle Steen. I was concerned
19 about her testifying. I was concerned about her rights. I knew for
20 a fact that we were both completely unaware of being recorded.
21 But with regard to the actual offences, in the sense that yes,
468
1 they are offences that carry fines under the law, that's as far as
2 the law says, that you know, I have no problem accepting a guilty
3 verdict as far as that goes. And if I didn't know that they would
4 then, you know, be tied to a penalty that would involve my dog being
5 killed or otherwise dealt with, and I made this clear in the first
6 trial, I would have no problem working with this.

7 I also know that, you know, if there hadn't been this intention
8 and they hadn't seized her, the likelihood is very strong that the
9 prosecution would have said to me, Okay, well, you know, you had these
10 three charges, like witnesses, and they would say, We'll drop one
11 or two, and you can pay this fine and we'll ask the judge for this,
12 and so on. And I have witnessed that in a case when a dog actually
13 killed a cat way off its property, way off its property. And that
14 was not even, there was no witnesses. There was not five witnesses.
15 There was none. There was no involvement of a seizure. There was
16 no talk of a muzzle and the dog hadn't been licensed in ten years
17 and so on. And the reasoning applied was, “First offence, Your
18 Honour.” Now, Your Honour, that is a standard that comes from the
19 Criminal Code for humans. But even if a human had killed, the first
20 offence argument as a way of meting out punishment would be laughable.
21 So the idea that that was okay, and that in the meantime I am
469
1 sitting there with my dog locked up all this time. Your Honour, you
2 know, it certainly isn't the Canada I decided to immigrant to. And
3 I don't understand why no body or authority hasn't taken an interest
4 to try to direct that this is changed, that my dog is returned.
5 I don't understand because I know very well that the courts do
6 have the authority, and I am hoping very much that this Court will
7 be fair and just and recognize the interest that the public shares,
8 as well as me in these things with regard to sentencing and that I
9 have made every effort, I don't think, you know, I would like to meet
10 the person who made more ...
11 Oh, this is a picture of the basket muzzle, I did have one (papers
12 shuffling), did, um, that this is um....
13 MS. SALSMAN: Well, it's kind of late, well ... this is a
14 picture of the basket muzzles she had been looking for.
15 THE COURT: Oh, you found it.
16 MS. ROGIER: You know, this a friend's ... (passes photo of
17 muzzle)
18 THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
19 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, we are talking about three charges.
20 We are talking about a dog that is at large, a dog that attacks, and
21 a dog that is in violation of a muzzle order, which under the law

470
1 are offences, and under the law offences carry fines. But also, any
2 apparently any offence, and I don't know if this is going to lead
3 ... actually this is my question for the Court is will there be, you
4 know, after the initial sentencing a second session ...
5 THE COURT: We are not at that stage yet. I haven't made
6 a decision yet.
7 MS. ROGIER: Okay, in the event that you have, is it possible
8 to know because I know that that's another consideration. But, in
9 fact, my Charter arguments, the ones I would like to made the most
10 would be with regard to the additional penalty.
11 But in any case, to take the fines which were the intention of
12 the legislative body, and to go into that to an additional penalty,
13 where the person that‟s owning the dog doesn't even know what the
14 possible sentencing could be, how far, or if there is even an appeal,
15 it puts someone at a very difficult position from day one with regard
16 to the guilt or, you know, how to plead for the offences, you see.
17 And so that's why it is so difficult. There is really no parity and

18 there really is no proportionality.
19 THE COURT: So you are saying that you didn't know that by
20 having Brindi unmuzzled and off leash jumping out of your car window
21 that day, you weren't aware of what the penalties might be?
471
1 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me?
2 THE COURT: You weren't aware of what the penalties might
3 be?
4 MS. ROGIER: No, I am not quite saying that, Your Honour, I
5 think. What I am saying is that, I don't think I was speaking about
6 that particular instance, actually. I was saying that it presents

7 a difficulty. I think that most people that are charged with these
8 charges would go in and try to plead not guilty and then expect that
9 there would be some fines and there would be, you know, whatever,
10 because the standard of proof as we know, is pretty low. And in dog
11 cases the tendency is to accept that as a complaint comes in then
12 something happened. And again, there is normally a very measured
13 way of dealing with this in the courts. You know, a simple way of
14 handing this with fines.
15 But, you see, everything changes if before you‟re charged, or
16 when your charged, your dog is seized. And there is no process linked
17 to the seizure to address the dog, and I think that the other thing
18 that is very inappropriate is that the dog and the owner are linked
19 somehow, and the characterization is an additional penalty is
20 carrying over the responsibility or the guilt of an owner to an animal
21 that is innocent and has no rights and so, also that the bond be ...
472
1 between this person and their dog has no value at all in this system.
2 So, there is, it's that, Your Honour.
3 THE COURT: You could argue, I suppose, the other way you
4 could say, well, the dog that is walking along the street that another
5 dog leaps out and bites it, doesn't that dog have rights to, to...
6 MS. ROGIER: There is actually ...

7 THE COURT: ... to walk along the street without getting
8 bitten.
9 MS. ROGIER: The owner has rights. The owner of that dog has
10 rights. And the owner of that dog has access to not only the
11 municipal by-law, but also to other means where he can seek redress
12 by taking the other dog owner to court. And, which happens. And,
13 sometimes, you know, this involves great sums of money. Sometimes
14 it does not. But, Your Honour the owners are, you know, both
15 responsible to and actually attached emotionally to their dogs and
16 I don't think that this is something that the law has considered too
17 often. Sometimes, it does, but I think it's out of whack with the
18 way the majority of society is. It is not really representative of
19 the value placed on dogs. I hear that this may be changing. But
20 I think that, you know, we all know, listen, Your Honour, every time,
21 invariably during this time which has been so painful from the first
473
1 minute they took my dog, I would try to relax by watching TV, and
2 invariably within five minutes or three minutes a dog would show up
3 on TV. Even on shows that are not about dogs, shows that are about
4 completely different topics. Dogs are just simply part of our lives.
5 And they have been with us for at least 30,000 years in our families.
6 So somehow in this culture, and I have to say, that I have been

7 in other cultures, including Germany, there is a real difference
8 between how dogs are viewed and valued and how they are treated by
9 the law. So that I have lived in Europe and Germany where dogs go
10 to restaurants, they go to stores, and even a dog that ... I would
11 not endorse this, but, you know, that killed a human, was ... the
12 family who had lost the family member was insistent on not killing
13 it.
14 So, there is a range there. And I think we have a lot of catching
15 up to do. And I think that my dog has demonstrated something here.
16 She's on the borderline. I don't think my dog is a black and white
17 case. I don't think that she is such that, it is extremely important

18 to set a precedent by coming down with the heaviest penalty for her.
19 As I said, you know, I have no problem, and I am willing to accept
20 responsibility for the offences, to the extent that they stop and
21 end as offences. But once they get attached to this outcome with
474
1 no other input from experts or from any separate proceeding
2 addressing the dog. I just think that there could be certainly a
3 court proceeding, or there could be out of court, but this is what
4 makes this, just not fair. And I think that's coupled with that.
5 That would be true in any case, but coupled with that, that the dog
6 is held pending the outcome of a by-law charge is extremely

7 disproportionate. I don't know how ... I know that there has been
8 eight-month long cases, but I don't think anyone has tried so hard
9 to please the system and to also avoid the loss of their dog as I
10 have.
11 And, Your Honour, I think you can say that I have done everything
12 I can to make sure that I comply, to make sure that I get the best
13 advice, to make sure that I document things as much as I can. And
14 I am really at the end of my rope right now. I don't really like
15 the idea that I have to submit a thing more in writing because this
16 is taking a massive amount of work.
17 THE COURT: Well, it's up to you, I mean. I am not saying

18 you have to ...
19 MS. ROGIER: I know, I understand.
20 THE COURT: But it's just that the Crown is going to submit
21 a response to your motion that you have raised with respect to Charter
475
1 issues, which I understand is the issue with respect to the warrant,
2 possibly, I think is the delay issue...
3 MS. ROGIER: Yeah.
4 THE COURT: And I ... it is also, a, due process with respect
5 to the length of time the dog, such as Brindi, is kept in custody,
6 to use that term, until such time as there is a resolution. I think

7 those are the maybe the three issues that you raised. And the other
8 one that I wondered about was with respect to the ... if I hear your
9 rightly, I may be wrong, is that part of your argument is that Brindi,
10 the type of bite that she has inflicted, that you are agreeing here
11 that she has, I think you are agreeing here at this point, on one,
12 two, three different occasions, I think, possibly a fourth occasion,
13 isn't sufficient to consider as serious as say, a think the end of
14 the spectrum was a “kill bite” as it was described by Ms. Jordan.
15 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, just to clarify ...
16 THE COURT: Is that a fair ...
17 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, just to clarify. There have been

18 two instances of an injury that punctured skin. And the first was
19 the one that lead to the muzzle order, which was one puncture in a
20 non-threatening area. And the second was the one that involved the
21 Simms. So that was after, and that was while we were training very
476
1 heavily and had actually made wonderful progress. So this was
2 representative of a step backwards and, as I think I am pleased to
3 say, Ms. Jordan explained is not to be unanticipated, that it is not
4 unusual, that when you are, you know, trying to rehabilitate and
5 animal that it would experience times when it, you just, recidivism,
6 it just ...
7 THE COURT: So at that point you would agree that the
8 training that you had received at that point on September 14, 2010,
9 it wasn't enough to have commanded Brindi to stop and she didn't stop.
10 You weren't ...
11 MS. ROGIER: I didn't even have ...
12 THE COURT: The training hadn‟t been as successful from
13 stopping her from ...
14 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, since I didn‟t know that she could
15 get out the window of the ... My primary goal was to ...
16 THE COURT: Well, you can have a dog and you can say “stay”,
17 “sit”, “stop”, “drop”, there is a lot of commands ...

18 MS. ROGIER: That's right.
19 THE COURT: Y and dogs will immediately do it, but that
20 wasn't the case with Brindi on that day.
21 MS. ROGIER: I can't tell you for a fact whether or not I said
477
1 anything. I honestly can't, and it's possible that I did. I only
2 know that my primary thought was to get out of the car and grab her
3 as quickly as I could. And you know, when a dog is moving in that
4 direction, it's tough to know.
5 So basically I think that, I don't know, also the effect on her
6 of being locked up for two years, I mean I think that any person can
7 imagine that an animal that stayed away from being held back, she
8 could smell and hear dogs, but she didn't have contact visually with
9 them, or even smelling them up close or something. That's something
10 for a dog that must be very frustrating. And I think it must be very
11 confusing and I don't know that we can answer more, I don't know if
12 we can really judge the degree to which that means anything. All
13 we know is that it happened.
14 And all the law asks is, did it happen? And if it happened,
15 fine the person. And that‟s as far as we know from the law, right.
16 So, you know, the rest of this is about a discussion that's a bigger
17 discussion, and has implications that are bigger, and so, you know,
18 as far as the proceedings today go, if we are here just to wrap up
19 the trial on the offences, I think I have already, you know, made
20 clear how I see them. I don't think, you know, whether I view them
21 in one way or another, I think belongs to the next

478
1 discussion. So that is satisfactory.
2 THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it, thank you. Let me
3 just look toY So I don't know if I need to hear from the Crown again,
4 in response?
5 MS. SALSMAN: Well, Your Honour, I just wanted a couple of
6 quick comments based on Ms. Rogier's testimony, since she hadn't

7 actually testified yet when I had summed up.
8 THE COURT: All right, that seems fair, all right.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
479
SUBMISSIONS BY MS. SALSMAN
1 SUBMISSIONS BY MS. SALSMAN
3 MS. SALSMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. It's mostly going back
4 to the due diligence issue because I think that Ms. Rogier's testimony
5 provides some additional clarity about what was going through her
6 mind that day.

7 Now when Ms. Rogier was first on the stand, she testified that
8 the window was only down, she thought the window was down by two
9 inches. She had actually tried to put the window back up and instead
10 it had somehow gone down, but under cross-examination, I think, Your
11 Honour, it doesn't seem that she has a very clear understanding of
12 exactly what she was trying to do that day.
13 And the idea that she thought it was two inches down, and then
14 instead it went down slightly, it just seems very improbable to me,
15 Your Honour, just because of the fact that Brindi, which is I believe
16 by her description, a 65 pound dog was able to get through the crack
17 of that window. It can't have been just a slight amount open, and
18 I think that most likely any reasonable person would have been aware
19 that a window immediately behind their ear was open at that period
20 of time.
21 So I think there is some issues of whether we should really

480
1 accept Ms. Rogier's testimony on that fact. And I think there are
2 some issues with Ms. Rogier's credibility overall. She did file a
3 couple of false reports with police, or sorry, with Animal Services.
4 First was maybe in the heat of the moment, but then three weeks later
5 she followed that up with another written, signed statement with a
6 false story implicating another dog, which I think that does impact
7 on her credibility today. Now the other issue, Your Honour, I think
8 that I still after her testimony, stand by that most of the offence
9 could have been prevented if Ms. Rogier had left the muzzle on the
10 dog while it was in the car.
11 And what I really got out of Ms. Rogier's testimony today, was
12 that she felt the muzzle order was unfair. She felt the muzzle order
13 was unclear, that she thought that it was unreasonable for her to
14 have to have her dog in a muzzle when it was in an escape-proof
15 enclosure. But I think if you go back to the decision of Judge
16 Murphy, it's very, very clear. It specifically says that, um, the
17 dog must be at all times, that she shall be muzzled ...

18 MS. ROGIER: Objection, Your Honour.
19 MS. SALSMAN: ... at all times and inside an escape proof ...
20 MS. ROGIER: Is this relevant? Is this relevant?
21 THE COURT: Just a minute, just a minute. No, no, allowed,

481
1 closing arguments.
2 MS. SALSMAN: It does very clearly state that Brindi shall be
3 muzzled at all times inside an escape-proof ... “and” inside and
4 escape-proof enclosure that does not allow the dog to jump, climb
5 or dig its way out. Now aside from the fact that Brindi was very
6 clearly able to jump of this escape-proof enclosure, is the fact that

7 Judge Murphy was contemplating that Brindi, would out of perhaps,
8 maybe in an overabundance of caution, be always muzzled, even when
9 in that escape-proof enclosure.
10 And that is something that clearly Ms. Rogier didn't think was
11 reasonable and, therefore, she didn't follow it. And if she had
12 followed it, then we would never be in this situation today and the
13 attack would never have taken place. So that's really all I wanted
14 to emphasize Your Honour, unless you have any other questions.
15 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, may I?
16 THE COURT: Yes, you can briefly respond, certainly.
17
18
19
20
21
482
REPLY BY MS. ROGIER
1 REPLY BY MS. ROGIER
3 MS. ROGIER: Well, I have to say this that, I mean, what we
4 have just heard, absolutely confirms what I am trying to say and the
5 picture I am trying to give you about the unyielding and absolutely
6 insensate position of HRM. It has a mission and it decides

7 arbitrarily on a case and it never seems to change, no matter what
8 itself has been doing and in the face of an incredibly inconsistent
9 record of enforcement, and inconsistent record of prosecution.
10 There is no rhyme or reason to what I ... to it.
11 There is no rhyme or reason for why the Crown, having had
12 sufficient proof on these charges from day one, insists on going
13 further to talk about intention and due diligence. And as far as
14 I know, and what I learned last time, they are no relevance to
15 establishing the guilt for this charge, for this particular offence.
16 Anything beyond ...
17 THE COURT: Well, the defence in these matters is with

18 respect to a level ... is a due diligence argument.
19 MS. ROGIER: As I understand, Your Honour, am I incorrect in
20 saying that the strict liability of the offences do not really
21 necessarily go beyond that to intention. What I heard was about

483
REPLY BY MS. ROGIER
1 suggestive of what my attitude is, and what I normally did, and what
2 I was trying to do overall. Not that incident. And my explanation,
3 I think, you know, is sufficient, what I testified to is sufficient,
4 to also establish guilt for this charge. I don't think you need to
5 go any further than that. And going further than that raises
6 questions about what the prosecutorial intent is here. And if it's

7 in service of the public interest. I think that has been, you know,
8 obviously an exercise that has gone well above and beyond the
9 necessity or what would be thought reasonable.
10 If I can't remember after two years of incredible stress, and
11 incredible traumas on the way, exactly what I did on a night, I mean,
12 that caused such a tremendous trauma on me, I think I can be forgiven.
13 If I can't give a satisfactorily logical account to the Crown such
14 that the Crown is willing to accept it on terms that I don't even
15 understand, frankly, I don‟t know what else I can do.
16 THE COURT: Well, the point is that you are here now. There
17 is evidence before the Court and it is the Court's now determination

18 about that testimony and it's gone beyond. The prosecution has put
19 forth its case, as they are certainly permitted to do. And, you have
20 defended the case as you are permitted to do.
21 MS. ROGIER: Well ...

484
REPLY BY MS. ROGIER
1 THE COURT: So, what I am going to do now is, okay, thank
2 you.
3 MS. ROGIER: Excuse me, I just have one more point ...
4 THE COURT: Okay, please.
5 MS. ROGIER: The suggestion that she was very clearly able
6 to jump out, I dispute heavily. There was no indication that she

7 was very clearly and there is no indication, there is no way to
8 establish something was close to my ear without knowing exactly how
9 far back that window was. And that changes indoors. There is
10 actually, you know, no distinction to be made there and I don't think
11 it involves, has any, as I said, reflection on this, but the
12 insinuations are the problem. So and they go to the additional
13 penalty. They don't ... I don't think they appropriately speak to
14 this.
15 But nevertheless, it was not clear that she would be able to
16 jump out. She had difficulty, it took her some moments, and I don't
17 think that is neither here nor there. But what I think is important
18 in this instance, is I think it is important to take, if there is
19 going to be a departure from the strict liability norm here, that
20 there is a consideration not only of those things that Crown has
21 pointed out in detail, but also the rest of the event and my actions
485
DISCUSSION
1 immediately following in terms of saying to the other dog. Not
2 necessarily to filing a report, but that ...
4 DISCUSSION
6 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine, I am going to stop you there

7 because I have heard, I have heard you indicated this position ...
8 MS. ROGIER: And as far as ... it goes to credibility.
9 THE COURT: Already, so I have that, I have that down, I have
10 that noted. So looking to Ms. Salsman with respect now to the
11 response with respect to the Charter issues that were raised by Ms.
12 Rogier?
13 MS. SALSMAN: Well, Your Honour ...
14 THE COURT: I am just looking to you for, I am asking ... looking
15 to you to see what you would suggest time-wise, I don't want to just
16 give you a time. It's something that you are going to be able to
17 draft up.
18 MS. SALSMAN: I guess I am assuming that Ms. Rogier is not giving
19 any further submissions, if that is the end of the response?
20 THE COURT: No, what I have allowed though, is that once, because
21 we have got, that's why I was clearing up for the record, what the
486
DISCUSSION
1 Charter ... We have got the brief. I've got a number of documents
2 and so on and correspondence from Ms. Rogier that you have had as
3 well. I think raising all the issues of her concern with respect to
4 due process, Charter issues, the warrant, the telephone conversation
5 between herself and Ms. Steen, as to whether that should be admitted
6 or not, and so on. So what I'd like you to do is if you would like
7 to look at your calendar and see when you feel you would be able to
8 produce written arguments with respect to these Charter issues. And
9 then, I would allow Ms. Rogier a certain amount of time to respond,
10 if she wishes to do so. In writing, though.
11 MS. SALSMAN: I don't know if suggesting three weeks is too long?
12 THE COURT: I think that's reasonable actually.
13 MS. SALSMAN: Great, then we could probably say April 6, well,
14 I believe April 6 is a holiday, so maybe April 5, okay.
15 THE COURT: The Crown's brief say, April 5th, all right. So that
16 will be provided to the Court and to Ms. Rogier April 5. April 5th
17 is a Thursday and about ... and are we looking at three weeks from
18 today? Is that about three weeks from today?
19 MS. SALSMAN: I think that's a day shy of three weeks.
20 THE COURT: Okay, so if we provide you the same opportunity to
21 respond, if you wish to do so?

487
DISCUSSION
1 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, as far as that goes, I think that's
2 ... you know, this ... the problem for me, now, is this. There is
3 first of all, with regard to the Charter argument, I do not know,
4 I am not clear on, as we don't have a ruling yet on these offences,
5 right? So that it would not necessarily be appropriate to address
6 Charter issues about the additional penalty.

7 THE COURT: No. We are not there yet. No, I can‟t go there yet,
8 yeah, obviously.
9 MS. ROGIER: So I have an opportunity, if I can be assured of
10 an opportunity for presenting it ...
11 THE COURT: Well, what will happen is that there will be a
12 decision. And that decision will cover these Charter issues with
13 respect to what's happening up to now, right. And then, if there
14 is a decision by the Court of a finding of guilt, and therefore at
15 that point in time that's when you would put forth your argument with
16 respect to what the sentencing should be.
17 MS. ROGIER: Okay, this is ...

18 THE COURT: Okay, that's how it would go.
19 MS. ROGIER: My, my ... I had an expectation we would be
20 concluding today, I don't know if I was contributing to the reason
21 we didn't or not, but I tried to do what I was asked.

488
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: Well, I am letting you know that it's up to you to
2 respond. You don't need to because I do have a lot of your material,
3 and I think I have a good handle on the issues that you have raised.
4 And I am just giving the Crown an opportunity to respond to those
5 issues in writing. You may or may not respond, I am just letting you
6 know that you can. If you wish to do that, we'll have you do that
7 within three weeks from the Crown, so that would be one, two, three,
8 April 26. And then, at that point I would come back with my decision
9 oh, okay, I would say, I am trying to think what I have ... I have
10 got a few things lined up before ... Okay, so let's say my decision,
11 and I am going to say this tentatively, May 10, but that's tentative,
12 I just, because I am not sure what else I am...
13 MS. ROGIER: So Your Honour ...
14 MS. SALSMAN: Your Honour, I just wanted to advise the court that
15 for scheduling reasons, that I will be out of the country from May
16 11 until June 1. So in terms of scheduling any hearings in that time.
17 THE COURT: Oh, okay. I see.

18 MS. SALSMAN: Now, if it's just a matter of giving a decision
19 or something like that, someone else from my office, obviously could
20 be available.
21 THE COURT: Okay, yeah. And as I say that date might not, I will
489
DISCUSSION
1 let everybody know if that's, if that's not going to be doable. I
2 just know that I have got about three or four ahead of ... and then
3 once I get the briefs, of course, I have to give some consideration
4 and I don't want to feel I am being too rushed to give my full
5 attention. So we will keep it at that, then, if that's okay with you.
6 And you could have someone here instead. Yeah.

7 MS. ROGIER: Your Honour, I have to express a lot of concern.
8 Because, frankly my intention with the Charter argument was to
9 present it prior to the beginning of the trial. And, that ...
10 THE COURT: Well, I have just told you what's happening though,
11 Ms. Rogier, this is what's going to happen.
12 MS. ROGIER: I understand that this is the way that it is now,
13 and I want to, I want to just bring this to your attention that now
14 we have a different situation, a completely unintentional outcome
15 on my part because I was not able to start this proceeding with the
16 voir dire, I wasn't present and decisions were made, and without my
17 presence, I don't know how a voir dire was made. And then we go into
18 the trial. Now, I am told that it will be until May 10th when I have
19 the final decision. April 26th when I have a decision on the Charter.
20 So, Your Honour, I don't know, you know, really I have to say, whether
21 there is any point now that the trial has concluded because the
490
DISCUSSION
1 reasoning for doing that was to ask to dismiss the charges or stay
2 the proceeding.
3 Since we have such a low standard of proof and everything, I
4 don't think there is likelihood that there is going to be three
5 innocent verdicts, and on the strength of that, without committing
6 the Court to that, it presents a further problem for me in terms of

7 my rights, and a further problem for me in terms of my dog's welfare.
8 That she be locked up again, from now until May. And foreseeably
9 later, but I have no way to know that. So, you know, I must, I don't
10 know if this is a protest or a plea. But the Court has extensive
11 testimony evidence now, especially with Susan Jordan, with regard
12 to my dog. And if the Court is satisfied that conditions in place,
13 or any other conditions that the Court may find reasonable and
14 appropriate here, would be sufficient for releasing my dog after all
15 this time. As is, there isn't ...
16 THE COURT: That's not going to happen until I have ...
17 MS. ROGIER: Well, then if that's not going to happen then ...
18 THE COURT: Just a minute. That's not going to happen until I
19 have made my decision. And that's not going to happen until May 10th
20 on 2012. All right, that's the decision of the court.
21 This Court has ... it's been two days of testimony. I am sorry
491
DISCUSSION
1 that Brindi continues to be in custody. We did have two days in
2 November. Unfortunately you were unable to be here from an injury.
3 I appreciate that, but there is only so much the Court can do with
4 a two day matter to fit it in, and as we already did, we fitted it
5 in on two Fridays, because generally those are kept for people in
6 custody, things of that nature, judicial research and writing, things

7 of that nature. So we have done our best as far as time-wise, as far
8 as I am concerned. And, this is what's going to happen.
9 So I am not going to repeat myself, other than to say Ms. Salsman
10 has asked for ... you have raised Charter issues. I am going to deal
11 with those Charter issues. I am not going to just sweep them under
12 the rug and say, Well, no, we won't bother dealing with them. I am
13 going to deal with them. They have been raised. They are before me,
14 and I am going to deal with them.
15 Ms. Salsman will provide her written brief with respect to
16 Charter matters and due process matters, things that you have raised
17 in your correspondence and in your brief and you will have an

18 opportunity to respond in writing. If you don't want to do that,
19 that's fine. But we will, in any event, return here on May 10th at
20 1:30 p.m. for the court's decision.
21 MS. ROGIER: But Your Honour, please ...

492
DISCUSSION
1 THE COURT: No. That‟s everything ... I saw.
2 MS. ROGIER: I would rather withdraw it.
3 THE COURT: I‟m done.
4 MS. ROGIER: I withdraw the Charter application. I
5 completely withdraw it. I want to have a decision.
6 THE COURT: No, I told you I am not withdrawing the Charter. I

7 am going to make decision on that Charter argument.
8 MS. ROGIER: This is terribly unfair. This is extremely unfair.
9 This is just compounding the problem. Your Honour, I will not make
10 more submissions. In fact, I am sorry that I did it in the first place.
11 THE COURT: That‟s fine. All right. Thanks very much. We are
12 done.
13 MATTER ADJOURNED (TIME: 16:26 HRS)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
493
CERTIFICATE OF COURT TRANSCRIBER
I, Joan Cluett, Court Transcriber, hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the evidence given
in the matter of The Queen v. Francesca Rogier, taken by way of
electronic digital recording.
_________________________________
JOAN CLUETT
(Registration No. 2006-02)
March 2, 2013
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
VERBATIM INC. - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1976

Transcript of Trial in Provincial Court of Dartmouth, March 2 and 16, 2012

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transcript of Trial in Provincial Court of Dartmouth, March 2 and 16, 2012

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CANADA

PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA

2012 Case # 2234849-851

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

HEARD BEFORE: The Honourable Judge Flora Buchan, J.P.C.

PLACE HEARD: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

DATES HEARD: March 2 and 16, 2012

COUNSEL: Ms. Katherine Salsman, for the Crown

Ms. Francesca Rogier, self-represented

VERBATIM INC. - Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

OPENING REMARKS/PRELIMINARY MATTERS ................ 6

Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............. 9

Direct Examination By Ms. Salsman .............. 29

Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman .............. 49

VOIR DIRE COMMENCES

Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman on Voir Dire . 51

SUBMISSION ON VOIR DIRE BY MS. SALSMAN ............... 58

CST. SHELLEY MEWS

Cross-Examination by Ms Rogier .................. 70

Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................. 77

Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................. 116

Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............ 161

Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ............... 166

Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................. 172

MARCH 16, 2012

Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier (Cont'd.) ....... 209

Examination by the Court ........................ 251

Cross-Examination by Ms. Rogier ................ 255

Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Salsman ........... 280

Direct Examination re Qualifications

QUALIFIED AS EXPERT .................................. 290

Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier ................ 291

Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman ................ 328

Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Rogier ............. 335

DISCUSSION .......................................... 339

SUBMISSION BY MS. SALSMAN ........................... 347

Direct Evidence ................................. 365

Cross-Examination by Ms. Salsman ................ 408

SUBMISSION BY MS. ROGIER ............................. 460

REPLY BY MS. SALSMAN ................................. 479

REPLY BY MS. ROGIER .................................. 482

DISCUSSION ........................................... 485

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

1 Photos taken by Cst. Mews 21

2 Photos of Lucy's injuries 25

VD-1 CD of phone calls to dispatch/call centre 53

Vd-2 Transcript of phone calls part 1 55

Vd-3 Transcript of phone calls part 2 56

3 Vet bill 161

4 Warrant to seize 168

5 HRM Animal Services muzzle order 169

6 Decision on Sentencing on Previous Trial 170

7 Photo of Brindi inside pound 171

8 Photos of Brindi at SPCA party 174

9 Information for warrant to seize 182

10 Transcript of Katie Simms RCMP statement 204

11 HRM By-law A-300 respecting animals 282

12 HRM Municipality Charter dog By-law 282

14 Photo of Rogier driveway area 386

15 Simms attachment C, diagram of property 387

16 Crown's 2010 Supreme Court motion brief 404

3 MATTER COMMENCED (TIME: 09:43 HRS)

5 THE CLERK: Francesca Rogier.