Forum Help And Support Needed.
I apologize for the length of this posting and I especially hate to ask of this community but circumstances have left me with no alternative, please bare with me. As a number of you will remember in Dec 2007 Michele had to take herself, Matt and Kassidy, and half of our dogs from our home down to Utah (and now Idaho) U.S.A., to protect 4 of our dogs from seizure by the Gatineau municipal animal control staff. Now almost 2 years later we are still at an impasse with the municipal politicians and staff over this and Michele and I are still suffering under this unreasonably imposed separation. If after reading the synopsis below you agree that Michele and I have been treated unfairly could you please send an e-mail to the Gatineau Mayor (Mr Marc Bureau at his official city e-mail, maire@gatineau.ca and his election campaign e-mail maire@marcbureau.com) and my city counsellor (Mr Alain Riel at, riel.alain@gatineau.ca and election2009@alainriel.ca ) expressing support for the granting of an exemption or grand-fathering against the city bylaw which limits us to four dogs in a household. This exemption should be granted due to the fact that we attempted to complete due diligence in determining the animal control bylaws before we contracted to build our house here in Gatineau. As we are currently in a municipal election campaign there is a brief window of opportunity where general community support may have an effect. Our municipal elections will be held 1 Nov 2009. While support from members in Quebec and the Ottawa area will have the most potential effect/sway. Comments from those further away which state an opinion that the actions of Gatineau government are imposing an unreasonable burden upon us which reflects poorly on the city’s image in this era of worldwide exposure through the internet could also have a beneficial effect. For those who are close enough to visit Gatineau on business or vacation a comment indicating that you might stay away because of this and hence withhold the economic benefits of tourism or business travel because of these unfair actions would also potentially hold sway on the identified government officials. If you do write please cc me (carl.lindon@videotron.ca) so I can have a record of support as I somehow continue to fight this. My next step is to try to get the local press to “pick-up” on this so if that happens I will individually ask permission of each writer to forward your e-mails on to show “general support”. Again as it is the later stages of an election campaign so there is a limited window of opportunity to exploit. Although long for a forum posting, here is a brief recap of the events that instigated this situation and my subsequent efforts to resolve the situation since Michele’s departure. Following ongoing harassment from our then landlord regarding our dogs Michele and I conducted an exhaustive search of the local real estate market to see if we could afford to purchase a home. In Feb 2005 Michele found a developer’s programme for which we qualified and we could afford. As part of our home search one of the first things we asked the sales agent was if there were any local bylaws limiting the number of dogs allowed on the property. The agent emphatically said that there were none. Not willing to risk such an investment and family security on the agent’s word I telephone the City of Gatineau’s information line and asked if such a bylaw existed. Again I was told no bylaws existed that limited the number of dogs on personal property. Based on this information in Mar 2005 we entered into a contract to purchase our house and looked forward to living in peace without outside interference and harassment about our dogs. Due to numerous delays we finally closed and moved into our home in late May 2006 – yes over 15 months later. Shortly after we moved in the local SPCA canvassed the neighbourhood (their “standard practise” for a new development) to identify dogs and cats for licensing and registration. When asked Michele advised the SPCA agent that we had 8 dogs at which point the agent simply indicated that they would have to be licensed. Nothing was said about any bylaw limiting us to 4 dogs. The dogs were licensed and all seemed well. In early Nov 2007, almost 18 months after moving in, an animal control “officer” attended our home during the workday while I was at work so Michele was alone with the children and dogs. That “officer” indicated that a complaint had been filed that we had a number of dogs which exceeded the bylaw statute maximum of 4 and that he was there to investigate the complaint and enforce the bylaw. The complaint was strictly limited to the number of dogs present. There had been no complaints that our dogs were running free, barking uncontrollably, doing their business on other people’s property, that we were not cleaning up after them or any other form of nuisance. Somebody simply objected to the number of dogs we have. He subsequently intimidated Michele, in fact threatened police enforcement of his entry if she resisted and forced his way into our home without a warrant. In the course of his search he saw the entirety of my home and our possessions therein and without permission photographed our dogs. He left saying that 4 of our dogs “had to go” and that he would return in a week to confirm that we were compliant with the bylaw. (While we don’t “know” who filed the complaint – city policy will not release that information – we are quite sure who it is because of threats and other harassing behaviour throughout the late summer and fall of 2007.) As a result of this illegal but officially-sanctioned home invasion I was eventually, albeit with great difficulty, able to schedule a meeting with an English speaking senior member of the city’s animal control staff, but it would was approximately 2 weeks distant. Before that meeting occurred however, on 11 Nov 2007 (Remembrance Day) barely a week from the first “visit”, I was home on a day off and while I was giving several of our larger dogs their morning walk I was accosted by the same officer who, for undisclosed reasons, was parked on an adjacent neighbourhood road. He demanded to know where I lived and was exceedingly belligerent wanting to discuss the matter there on the road and in public. I asked that he come to our home where we could talk in a more private and civilized atmosphere after my dogs had completed their potty business. He reluctantly agreed to do so and I proceeded on to complete the morning walk. Ultimately the animal control “officer” did not come to our home that day and I ended up “wasting” the day in spite of having a number of things I needed to do away from the house because I was effectively house-bound awaiting his visit. The next morning, again conveniently while I was at work, the officer again attended our home but this time in the company of what Michele describes as what must have been the largest police constable on the local force – Michele is but 5 ft 4 in tall. The animal control officer said he was here to again search the home and that the police officer was there to enforce his “right” to do so and to protect him because I had been “aggressive”. At that point the police constable placed his hand upon his firearm in another act of overt intimidation to force their entry into my home, again without a warrant. Michele asked for time to put the dogs in their crates and also asked if she could call me and have me talk to the animal control officer. They “allowed” the crating but denied the call. She was however able to grab the phone hand-set as she passed by it and called me in a total panic. At no point would the animal control officer speak to me and the two eventually departed saying that charges were going to be laid and seizure of 4 dogs would be initiated. Eventually Michele and I were able to meet with the office staff member but to no avail. This staff member had but two agendas, first to defend his employees repeated illegal entry into my home, and second to enforce his mantra of “four is four is four with no exceptions whatsoever”. It did not matter that a city staff member had given me incorrect information on the phone – in fact he all but outright accused me of lying about the call. It did not matter that the bylaws were not available in English either on the website or at city hall, nor did it matter that this was clearly the result of a neighbour’s harassment campaign in which the city had become not just an enabler through arbitrary and restrictive bylaws but had become an active participant by failing to make any investigative efforts and ignoring my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only “accommodation” such as it was, that we were able to wrestle from this staff member was to delay implementation until early Dec 2007 because of a scheduled business trip in late Nov 2007. Faced with draconian threats of legal actions and unable to afford to either move on short notice or afford a lawyer to defend myself in court, which nevertheless would not have prevented seizure of our dogs Michele departed for the United States on 4 Dec 2007. On 23 April 09 I was finally able to meet with my city counsellor and sought his assistance to gain some sort of exemption or “grandfathering” by virtue that I had attempted to complete due diligence in my investigation of the local bylaws but was thwarted by incorrect information from a city employee, a lack of access to local bylaws in English and the repeated illegal activities of another city employee. In spite of: a. convincing him that this a personal harassment campaign in which city staff have become an active participant, b. proving that we provide excellent care to our dogs and meet all clean-up, leash and noise abatement requirements of the bylaws, c. offering concessions on my part in that I am willing to pay for the extra licences and a reasonable premium for those extra licenses, d. demonstrating that dogs are our primary focus and that we expend any efforts necessary in their care and custody, e. showing him our CKC registration papers for each dog, our CKC kennel license and other relevant registration/purchase documents, f. pointing out the inequity that four dogs of any given breed are not the same as four or another in terms or required care, presence or public visibility even though the bylaw treats them as such, ie, four Chihuahuas are not the same as four Poodles, are not the same as four Golden Retrievers, are not the same as four Bobtails are not the same as four Newfoundlands and are not the same as four St. Bernards g. providing the counsellor with copies of our letter from the animal control staff, h. indicating that any exemption granted would be a temporary measure until I am moved by the military, expected in summer 2011, i. showing the poor humanitarian conditions which Michele, Matt, Michele and “her” dogs suffer living in our travel trailer (nice as it may be for a weekend or two) and now facing their third winter in those conditions, and j. pointing out that Michele and I have been penalized for a longer duration and greater cost than do many who are convicted of felony offences and sentenced to jail time. I have been unable to gain any form of accommodation. In fact in spite of several trips to city hall I have still been unable to get a copy of the bylaw in English even after the city counsellor said he would ensure I was provided with one. Indeed the counsellor has not returned my calls for over a week since his “we’ve lost the battle” e-mail and appears to be avoiding me. I have asked my counsellor to arrange a meeting with the mayor to review this case and his objections based on “setting a precedent”. I have not received a response regarding that either. Michele and I have seen each other for only 9 days since she was forced to leave and that only at extreme travel costs for her to return on two occasions. I have not seen Matt or Kassidy nor the 4 dogs in her company since. If I was able to I would simply move but that is not an option. The military has just repositioned me here in the National Capital Region (Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau Quebec area) so I do not expect a geographic movement funded by the military until at least summer 2011. Having purchased our home only 3 1/2 years ago I simply cannot afford to move. Real estate fees, legal closing fees and an actual move would exceed $30,000 which would preclude us from buying another home. It would normally take 5 years to get to a point where a move would be affordable based on regular real estate appreciation. Having experienced the recent economic downturn and it’s effect on real estate values that time frame has increased to 7-8 years. In addition to the other losses and difficulties incurred undoubtedly the greatest pain endured has been the loss of our beloved Martin Zephram. Along with the other dogs who stayed with me he had to spend far too much of his last days alone in bed as I had to work throughout the regular work day and Michele was not there to care for him or the others during my workday absence. Michele was even unable to say good-bye to our first son properly – sorry video conference on Skype while better than nothing is simply no substitute to actual presence. One day she will have to go through it all again to gain closure when she comes back to a house without him in it, either this one or eventually another one. I had to go through the whole episode alone without my support system and greatest strength, Michele. And to a great extent I will have to relive Martin's loss when Michele finally returns to experiences a home without him – right now in some ways he is not gone to her because she hasn’t experienced the emptiness of this house and had the closure robbed frmhere by this imposed separation. I do not expect others to necessarily agree with or make the same choices that we have regarding dogs and I would not impose them on others. However it is fundamentally unfair and categorically wrong that we are forced to suffer emotionally, physically and financially as a direct result of a city employee’s error and the bylaws being unavailable to us in the one official language of this country which I speak and read. Anyway, such is our sad tale. If you feel we have been wronged any words on our behalf would be much appreciated. |
|
|
| Carl and Michelle.
I am so sorry, having multiple dogs myself I always have that fear. I do believe it should be "grandfathered" in and I will send the appropriate email to the addresses supplied. If you would allow me to share your story, I pet sit here in NC for Canadian Citizens that I am sure would also support you. I know they frequent Canada(not sure which part) I am so sorry you all are going through this.... 
I am sure your forum family will reach out for you! |
Donner's Mom wrote: Carl and Michelle.
I am so sorry, having multiple dogs myself I always have that fear. I do believe it should be "grandfathered" in and I will send the appropriate email to the addresses supplied. If you would allow me to share your story, I pet sit here in NC for Canadian Citizens that I am sure would also support you. I know they frequent Canada(not sure which part) I am so sorry you all are going through this.... I am sure your forum family will reach out for you! Donners Mom, By all means please distribute this to those who you think may be able to offer support or help. That of course goes for anyone else who may have "distribution list friends" who may offer support. Thanks and Cheers Carl |
| Geeez Carl, that really is horrible.
Any chance that zoning would allow you to turn the property into a multi family building, and would it help? How about an "in-law" apartment? |
Ron wrote: Geeez Carl, that really is horrible.
Any chance that zoning would allow you to turn the property into a multi family building, and would it help? How about an "in-law" apartment? Nope, I have already looked into such venues. Either way the house isn't configured to support another "unit". This call for help really is a last play "Hail Mary" throw. Thanks for the attempt to be innovative though. Carl |
| I'm so sorry Carl, and Michele... your whole family, two legged and four legged, should not have to go through this.
I was always under the impression that when a bylaw such a dog number limits changed the previous bylaw or lack of one was all the precedent needed to be "grandfathered" Perhaps a lawyer, young and fresh out of law school, who is an animal lover, could be convinced to take on the case pro bono and advise you as to some other steps you might take? |
Willowsprite wrote: I was always under the impression that when a bylaw such a dog number limits changed the previous bylaw or lack of one was all the precedent needed to be "grandfathered"
Not unless things are very different north of the border. Many American dog owners have found themselves in similar positions with no direct legal recourse. Carl, of course you have my support. Just one more example of how boneheaded dog limit laws are. It's the care, not the numbers. And in most places they can and will change them behind your back so to speak, and they are not required to allow for grandfathering. You can go from being perfectly legal one day to the nightmare situation Carl describes in the blink of an eye. It's happening all over the US as well. Carl, I'm sure you contacted local dog clubs for their support (if there are any) and looked into if you have any dog federation type organizations in your area. You may want to consider joining the pet-law group on yahoo as well where you will get a sympathic ear as well as (hopefully) some creative ideas. See http://www.pet-law.com/ Hang in there. Kristine |
| That really bites. I feel so bad for you Carl, Michele and dogs. While not the best option, thank goodness Michele and the other dogs have somewhere safe to stay and be with family. I can't imagine how bad it would be otherwise.
Todd and I would be in the same boat (as MANY others here) as you if they decided to change the dog/animal laws here.  |
| Carl, I'm so sorry . Of course you have my support and this may be of benefit somehow: on the Ontario Showdog list there are others who are having the same or similiar problems. One of them may have some suggestions for you. |
Wow...this is just beyond unbelievable. I'm so sorry you're going through this Carl & Michele. What an awful ordeal.  |
| That sounds like a horrible nightmare you can't wake from.
I'm so sorry. |
| Carl
Is there a general idea of what I can send? I am not sure what the best approach would be?? 
Thanks |
Donner's Mom wrote: Carl
Is there a general idea of what I can send? I am not sure what the best approach would be?? Thanks Same here, I would gladly send something but I have no idea what to say |
jean wrote: Donner's Mom wrote: Carl Is there a general idea of what I can send? I am not sure what the best approach would be?? Thanks Same here, I would gladly send something but I have no idea what to say Jean, Donner's Mom, all, I am just checking the forum quickly before work so I don't have time to post anything significant right now. However I will post a "template" letter which will cover all the points I think need to be made. You can then add or delete from that as you think is appropriate to yourselves and honestly reflects your opinions. Thanks for the support thus far and your willingness to write on our behalf. It is just fundamentally wrong that my family has to suffer as a consequence of the mistake of a city employee and the lack of an English translation of the bylaws in a country that has an official bilingualism act. PLease check back around 6:00 pm eastern or so. Sincerely, Carl |
jean wrote: Donner's Mom wrote: Carl Is there a general idea of what I can send? I am not sure what the best approach would be?? Thanks Same here, I would gladly send something but I have no idea what to say I have had the opportunity to draft a "template" letter that could be used to send to the Gatineau mayor and counsellor. Please feel free to change the wording to better represent your own style if desired. It is the subject matter that is most important, and in fact varying the actual wording will show individual interest. The subject matter of the blue coloured text is what I consider to be the most critical and should be included in any letter. Text in cyan shows areas where I have identified alternate wording, please select the wording you feel is most appropriate to you and delete the alternative. Text in black supports the core content in blue and while not essential does offer further emphasis and detail that may help sway the politicians. One other point of background. I have mentioned a neighbour using the city to conduct a harassment campaign against use. Not only has that neighbour complained about us having more than 4 dogs - complaint about the numbers only, not about them being a nusiance or us not cleaning up properly after almost 18 months of living next to us (we moved in first), they have also complained about our trailer and numerous other alleged offenses against the city's plethora of overly restrictive bylaws. Mayor Bureau, Counsellor Riel, I am a fellow Old English Sheepdog parent/owner and a (personal friend)(internet acquaintance) to Carl and Michele Lindon who own a home in Gatineau, Quebec. Since 4 December 2007 they, their children and dogs have been suffering through an extended separation imposed upon them by your city staff and bylaws because they are a CKC registered kennel and own more than 4 pedigree dogs. Carl and Michele have seen each other for a total of only 9 days since 4 Dec 2007 and he has not seen his children or half of his dogs at all since that date. Michele’s heartbreak over the late August 2009 sudden death of one of their dogs that remained in Gatineau is made even worse by her being unable to gain closure because of this imposed separation. I would like to submit my support for them and petition you to allow/invoke some form of exemption or grandfathering clause against the local animal control bylaw limitation of 4 dogs in a household. An exemption or grandfathering clause would be well justified based on Mr. and Mrs. Lindon having conducted due diligence in trying to determine if there were any limits to the number of dogs allowed in a residence prior to their contracting for a home in Gatineau. During a telephone call to the City of Gatineau’s general information line they were told by a city employee that there were no such limits. Apparently that was incorrect but they had no way to know that at the time. Further to this Mr. Lindon tried to obtain a copy of the bylaw in English through both the city’s website and visiting the city hall building in Aylmer, English being the only language they speak and which in fact is one of the two official languages of Canada. These efforts certainly meet any reasonable criteria for conducting due diligence and their home purchase was based on this information. Had either of these factors been different and they had been able to determine the facts of your bylaws they would not have entered into a purchase contract for a house in Gatineau during early 2005. The bylaw provision being used against the Lindon’s is based on an arbitrary number of pets that fails to recognize mitigating circumstances such as their status as a CKC registered kennel, the standard of care they provide to their dogs and their performance regarding all other aspects of animal husbandry. Your bylaw does not allow any provision for individual interests and pursuits by your citizens and even fails to recognize the varying care requirements of different breeds. Your bylaw essentially says that Chihuahuas are the same as St. Bernards in terms of care, custody and animal husbandry which is clearly not the case. It also effectively states that nobody is capable of taking care of more than 4 dogs regardless of their interests or background and that anyone with more than 4 dogs is irresponsible and will invariably interfere with their neighbours which is, at best, presumptuous. Such bylaws should not be “one size fits all”, neither for the pets nor the citizens. Since an undisclosed neighbour has effectively enlisted the city to conduct a continuing harassment campaign against them, your city’s animal control staff have been unrelenting in enforcing the bylaw’s maximum dog provision, up to and including repeated illegal forced entry into the Lindon’s home without a search warrant while Mr. Lindon was at work. Unable to afford to sell their home and purchase an alternative in the more expensive rural areas of the Ontario side of the National Capital Region, the Lindons faced no alternative but for Mrs Lindon, their two children and 4 of their dogs to leave Canada and return to Mrs’ Lindon’s prior home of the western U.S.A. They have been living in the family’s hybrid travel trailer for almost 2 years and now face a third Rocky Mountain winter in spartan, even inhumane conditions. The fold-out bed tents have canvas covers which preclude any effective heating in the depths of winter. Overall, while adequate for weekend dog show travel between April and October, a 23 ft trailer is just too small for continuous all season occupancy by 3 people and 4 dogs. Sirs, it is fundamentally wrong that Mr. and Mrs. Lindon are forced to suffer as a result of a city employee’s error and the unavailability of bylaws in the official language that they speak, especially when they diligently tried to determine the exact statute which is now being so ruthless used against them. This is a very high profile example of how badly a city can mistreat and harass its citizens and it reflects very poorly on Gatineau’s international image in this day of internet exposure. The response to this case on our internet forum of more than 3000 members worldwide is exclusively negative. I know that Mr. and Mrs. Lindon are on other dog related mailing lists and I expect that reaction among those lists is equally condemning of Gatineau. I consider the treatment of Mr and Mrs. Lindon to be so offensive that while it continues, (were I close enough) (should I have the opportunity or need) to visit the National Capital Region of Canada I would not visit Gatineau and hence would/will withhold the economic benefit from your city that you could otherwise reasonably expect from my tourist or business travel. Please, quickly find some mechanism which will allow the Lindon family to be re-united for the duration of Mr. Lindon’s military posting to the National Capital Region. I know that once he is moved by the military, he, his family and his dogs will not return to Gatineau so this would be a temporary measure only. Certainly you can do that much after they have suffered this much and for this long. Sincerely, Your name and location I implore as many of the forum members as possible to spend a few moments and submit a letter in our support. I have exhaused every other venue I can think of and simply cannot move at this time. Again the e-mail addresses are: maire@gatineau.ca maire@marcbureau.com riel.alain@gatineau.ca election2009@alainriel.ca My e-mail for a cc copy is carl.lindon@videotron.ca Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and Cheers |
| Carl, What you and your family have and are going through is horrible. What I get from your letter is that it all started because of one lousy neighbor.
You did everything the "right" way and still get penalized. I agree with one writers post and try to get someone to do it pro bono. This weekend I will use your template and write some letters. I can only hope it will help. |
| I'd like to thank everyone for their posts. I've had some internet problems the last few days so haven't been able to post until now.
The last two years have been the hardest of my life, even harder than the year both my parents passed away. This will be our fourth winter living in a 23' RV with 4 people and 7 dogs(these include my grand doggers, who own my oldest daughter that is going to college with me). We've made the best of it by taking advantage of the opportunity to attend school and to see parts of the US that were previously unknown. But the stress of living conditions, financial strain and the forced separation of our family are taking a tremendous toll. I've always been the type of person to think the best of others and never take offense easily. I try to make a positive impact on the lives that I come into contact with. Probably the biggest change for me, other than having to live apart from my husband and other four footed kids, has been my loss of security. I will never again believe that if you are innocent then you have nothing to fear. I find it incredible that with one phone call a person can destroy another life just for spite. And worse than that I truly believe that the people that are the instigators of this H*ll have really done it because my husband is part of the Canadian Military. I believe that any testimony written on our behalf will have a great impact on the outcome of this saga. Even a short note of support for us would be very much appreciated. The time for this is very very short. Please take a moment to write to the email addresses contained in Carl's posting. Whether or not you agree with the decisions we have made please send a note in support of our responsible dog ownership. Once again thank you for your sweet words. It helps to know that friends that understand are out there. |
| I don't know how much help I'll be from Australia, but I am sending in the email too and you have my full support.
|
 Hi Carl and Michelle, I'll be happy to send a letter as well. This is indeed a terrible situation for you both. There is a law in my city restricting dog ownership for householders and one or two people have been successful in challenging the law. However, it was a case of having three dogs rather than the two as allowed by the bylaw. Pet restrictions on rentals are also usual unless you are renting a rural property. .
Best wishes. |
| I too am in Australia and own several dogs. I too have rotten neighbours. I know what you are going through. I will be asking my two sons who are perminant residents who live near you to also email support as they know what a situation like this would do to me. I think support from other countries would be helpful as your local gov would realize they are being watched by outsiders. In this case, two eligable voters who have been informed of the situation, who can cast a vote which could have an impact. Good luck with everything. I hope your family will be re united soon in peace. |
Anonymous wrote: I too am in Australia and own several dogs. I too have rotten neighbours. I know what you are going through. I will be asking my two sons who are perminant residents who live near you to also email support as they know what a situation like this would do to me. I think support from other countries would be helpful as your local gov would realize they are being watched by outsiders. In this case, two eligable voters who have been informed of the situation, who can cast a vote which could have an impact. Good luck with everything. I hope your family will be re united soon in peace.
Thank you for your note of support and your commitment to write and have your family member's write on our behalf. Support from any location, near or far, is in my opinion helpful. I hope that your family members' letters will help awaken our politicians and bureaucrats to the fact that the local population are tired of overbearing bylaws and their indiscriminant application damaging lives and family interests. And support from more "distant" locations demonstrates that we live in a closely tied world where activities and decisions such as this are available for "peer review and discussion" in places where they would never have previously even been known. As I noted in the template letter that some have used "This is a very high profile example of how badly a city can mistreat and harass its citizens and it reflects very poorly on Gatineau’s international image in this day of internet exposure. The response to this case on our internet forum of more than 3000 members worldwide is exclusively negative" I will of course advise this community of any progress, or otherwise, as and when I am advised. Again, Thank You. Carl and Michele |
| Carl,
How are things going with council? Just read this post and wondered how things turned out with the election and all. What about contacting a TV station for media attention? Remember the days when CTV national had "Goldhawk" on and he would take on peoples issues for them with the powers that be. |
Anonymous wrote: Carl,
How are things going with council? Just read this post and wondered how things turned out with the election and all. What about contacting a TV station for media attention? Remember the days when CTV national had "Goldhawk" on and he would take on peoples issues for them with the powers that be. Thank-you for the continued interest and question. Yes I remember Goldhawk very well and if there were still such a forum I would be seeking it’s assistance. Anyway, in answer to your query…. To say the least things have not gone well. The city continues to refuse to accept any responsibility for the error of it’s employees and it appears to be impossible to meet with the mayor. In spite of the mayor’s office seemingly treating the matter seriously when several of the forum members e-mailed the mayor and councillor (I was copied on 7 e-mails to the mayor and counsellor – there may have been more but I am not aware of them) and the submission of letter signed by 10 exhibitors at the OESOCC national specialty in Oct 2009 to the mayor, just before the election my counsellor “walked away” from the issue and has refused to assist me any further including my last request of him to facilitate securing a meeting with the mayor. If fact following a curt “we lost the battle” e-mail I telephoned him but he was on another line. He indicated that he would return my call as soon as the other call was finished but 3 weeks later he had not called back or responded to several follow-up phone calls and e-mails from me. It is my opinion that he counsellor simply “dragged this out” so that it could not become an election issue. Once it was close enough to the election date that he felt there was no chance of it becoming a public problem he “walked away”. Since then I have had a meeting with the Director of Police Services with the Aylmer Services Manager in attendance. I again reviewed the entire case with both these gentlemen. While they listened it was clear that they had little intent of assisting me as they stated they did not have the authority to do anything in this matter and there were further comments that appeared to question my assertion that I had received incorrect information from the city’s general information line through comments such as “I can’t understand how such a thing would be said” from the director and the services manager asking “why would you think that you would be allowed 8 dogs on your property”. Excuse me but the last time I checked this was a free country with the right to my own choice of interests, associations and expression. Granted there are responsibilities that come with those choices but I have always accepted and fulfilled my civic and moral responsibilities. Remember that I am a serving military officer who has accepted “unlimited liability” in my job – ie I might get killed. Apparently the summary report from that meeting recommended that the city stand fast and enforce the law as written with no accommodations or variances for me. Simultaneously, I have repeatedly tried to get a meeting with the mayor but his Chief of Staff has consistently dismissed my requests, sent me off to the City Ombudsman’s office and ultimately he has effectively said “go to civil court if you think your rights have been denied and you don’t like it”! My attempt to get a resolution from the Ombudsman’s office was, as in now the standard result in dealing with this city, completely ineffectual. The ombudsman basically stated that this case is not within his mandate, that the report from the Director of the Police Services recommended enforcing the law and that he would not even meet with me to review the file for completeness or accuracy. He also stated that the animal control employee who invaded my home twice is no longer employed by the animal control division. Apparently nothing is going to be pursued for his repeated illegal entry into my home even thought the implication is that he is still employed by the city but in another division. There was no mention whatsoever of the constable who accompanied him and intimidated Michele by clearly, deliberately and continuously placing his hand on his firearm during the second officially sanctioned home invasion. It is my contention that both broke not only department policy and fundamental rules of peace officer conduct but also Canada’s Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect me from “unreasonable search” – ie get a warrant to enter my home without permission, and no neither had permission to enter my home. The only information of even minor benefit that came from the Ombudsman’s e-mail is that the Director of Police Services has investigated and made it know to his employees not to enter homes without warrants. Great, but shouldn’t that be one of the first topics covered in “Basic Policing 101”? During my meeting with the Director of Police Services I did make it abundantly clear that no employee of the city has permission to even be on my property without a warrant and that I will pursue legal recourse if there is ever even the remote resemblance of a recurrence. So I am left with the question “if it can’t adjudicate complaints of blatantly illegal behaviour and incorrect information from a city employee subjecting citizens to harassment and subjugation just what is the role of the Office of the Ombudsman”. I am currently trying to get a copy of the report submitted to the mayor’s office by the Director of the Police Services. I politely requested a copy via an e-mail last week, the reply to which is that the request was being referred to the “Access to Information Officer”. And surprise-surprise quick as a flash nothing has happened. The Access to Information Officer has not even replied to yesterday’s follow-up e-mail asking for the status of the request and if I need to complete any “official forms” to expedite the process. Once I get a copy of this report – that is if it is released in a reasonable timeframe - I will make one more attempt to get a meeting with the mayor to try and arrive at some sort of reasonable resolution. If that fails I will be contacting my federal Member of Parliament (federal law had been broken) and the local press. During the election campaign I met a candidate who apparently has a number of press contacts and indicated that he would facilitate a meeting. I honestly can’t see the problem with just releasing this report. My family and I are the sole subjects of the report, it affects nobody else and will almost undoubtedly have to be released under the access to information rules so why delay and just “ratchet up” the level of animosity between the city and myself? So, in spite of continued efforts on my part and following every “procedure” of which I have been advised we are no closer to resolving this and getting my family back into our house. In fact it appears that the city is becoming increasingly entrenched in their position and do not want to listen to arguments for a variance/exception nor even an argument for amending the bylaw to allow an “excess pet numbers authorization” or a “residential kennel permit” for registered kennels/rescue organizations/fostering of abandoned pets or raising guide or service dogs. Michele came home with Matthew and 3 of “her” dogs for a Christmas/New Year’s visit – the first time we had seen each other in over 9 months and the first time I have seen either of our children in 2 years. We “exchanged dogs” and for other reasons Matthew has stayed with me. Michele returned to school in Idaho with no idea when we will see each other again. So I now have our two remaining Bobtails, Virgil and Dawn and both Afghan Hounds Farouk and Brigham while Michele has Jeffurry (Bedlington Terrier), Josephine (Papillon) and Gidget (Chihuahua) in the RV trailer. In the end the exchange of dogs will be for the benefit of all involved but it has been heart wrenching. Dawn and Brigham are very much Michele’s dogs and it tore her apart to leave them with me while Josephine is very much “Daddy’s little Frenchie Girl”. She has had some problems adjusting to being with Michele instead of me but seems to be settling down now after 3 weeks. 22 months later we still suffer under an imposed separation with all it’s emotional, health and financial repercussions …… |
| Carl, have you contacted an attorney? |
| You need publicity.
Create a website or blog with your details and pictures of your home, dogs, family, etc. Promote it everywhere you can. Respond to blog posts of other OES/dog owners with reference to your situation and blog. Send it to news stations, news papers, online media outlets, all organizations you can think of. Going through their channels is fruitless. Get an attorney, generate as much publicity as you can and get some results. |
rdf wrote: You need publicity.
Create a website or blog with your details and pictures of your home, dogs, family, etc. Promote it everywhere you can. Respond to blog posts of other OES/dog owners with reference to your situation and blog. Send it to news stations, news papers, online media outlets, all organizations you can think of. Going through their channels is fruitless. Get an attorney, generate as much publicity as you can and get some results. Second that. Nothing is more terrifying to public officials than daylight. This is symptomatic of something far more insidious than just your situation - I have no doubt that there are other citizens in your area who are being treated with the same cloak-and-dagger behavior. Local media here in the U.S. loves a scandal - I can't imagine that the Canadian press is much different. I think you'll find a well of support from fellow citizens who, while they may not have exactly your issue, have been treated similarly with problems they might have. Accountability from government is necessary no matter what country you live in. - This sounds like the tip of an iceberg to me. |
| Agree re: publicity.
I live in a small city in Minnesota where a lot of things are tried in the local newspaper. You could start by writing a simple, clear letter to the editor of local newspapers stating your case, in the simplest and most sraight forward manner possible. State that you made your plans to establish residency and your kennel based upon verbal advice from a city employee and it was only after your family and dogs had settled into your new home and a neighbor complained that you became aware that it appeared the information you received was incorrect. Fortunately OES are a wonderful photo op. Mine have appeared in photographs in the city papers for years, with my husband and 3 of my four children. One photo made the AP wire service, which we found out when one of my husband's colleagues was on a business trip to Chicago and saw my husband's photo with our 3 OES. I have no idea how many pictures of our dogs have been circulated internationally as international students, especially young women from Japan, seem to fall in love with them and 'have' to take their picture and send it to all of their friends. And, I might add, we're not nearly so proficient or dedicated groomer as you are. And of course, Afghans are also stunning and photogenic. The focus of the story should be on the beautiful dogs, how much they add to the community, how much you and your famiy have sacrificed, how much you all love each other and value the community. At the very least, I would think some enterprising young photo journalist might want to stop by to take some pix and who could resist? |
| Carl,
I don't mean this in any way except curiosity (but I realize the nature of the internet could make it sound judgmental) but why is Michelle living so far away? Is she staying with relatives or living in the RV? If it's personal, I also understand. |
ButtersStotch wrote: Carl, I don't mean this in any way except curiosity (but I realize the nature of the internet could make it sound judgmental) but why is Michelle living so far away? Is she staying with relatives or living in the RV? If it's personal, I also understand. No not a personal issue. Michele was born and for the most part raised in Utah. Her older son and daughter are still there so when she left in Dec 07 she went back to "home turf" and ended up parking on her daughter's driveway for a year. In late 08 she found an education grant program for which she qualified in Idaho. So early last year she, Sara (oldest daughter) and Matt and Kassidy moved the RV up to the Twin Falls area so she and Sara could attend classes at College of Southern Idaho. Also Quote: 22 months later we still suffer under an imposed separation with all it’s emotional, health and financial repercussions ……
I should have written 26 months later... It has been 04 Dec 2007 to 03 Feb 2010 and counting. Thanks and Cheers Carl |
| Is it still illegal for her to just park and live in your driveway? Probably since it's the same residence, huh?
Some of those dogs are so small that they shouldn't really even count towards towards your total number. I would think the Bedlington, Pappilon and Chihuahua could all combine to count as one dog. |
| ButtersStotch,
We really have thought of parking in the driveway...but....that was nix'ed in Nov. '07 while under the pressure of keeping our family intact we also got a visit from ANOTHER bylaw officer (a lady this time). She told us that she had a complaint that our RV was parked in our driveway. (yes, I know...you thought it was OUR driveway...so did we). She told us they normally overlook RV's during the summer months but that they had a complaint (do we see a pattern here?) I used to believe that if you did nothing wrong that you would never have to worry about "being convicted and sent to jail". That justice would always prevail. Sadly, reality is...anyone can wage a campaign against you and win....and they won't even have to "jail" you themselves..they can use the government officials to do it for them. Carl and I have circled, diced, rethought, hashed and rehashed this problem...using a million different scenarios....so far none have an outcome of keeping ALL of our family members together. While this is not what I would normally choose for myself and my family...I made a commitment to my furry children when I adopted them (or they me, lol). I will protect them...even if it means that the two footed members of this family sacrifice time together. I hasn't been all bad. Some of our lemons have been made into lemonade...even if it is a bit bitter. I've found a passion for accounting/bookkeeping I never would have known without this opportunity...and I become certified this semester and hopefully graduate after next semester. Matt is getting some one-on-one time with Carl...and my girls are keeping my sanity glued together. I'm tired of fighting with the government...I just want a patch of ground, in the middle of nowheresville....so I can raise and show my dogs in peace and let my kids have a place they can say "I grew up here". Thanks for all your support...and the warm wishes from those that posted and those that just thought them. It does help to know that there are people that understand why we would sacrifice so much for "just dogs"...these are my children..... innocent and entirely worth it!!! |
| Michele, Carl.
I just wanted to say that my respect and admiration for the both of you is indescribable. How many people can say they have given up what the both of you have to save their dogs? How many people would do that.. not many is my guess. The example you are both setting for your children with regard to what is important in life, in this case, your dogs, will help them overcome any struggles they may encounter and make them stronger adults. I cannot even begin to imagine how hard it must be for you and Carl to be separated like you have been… but like you said.. life gives you lemons… make some lemonade. Everyone will be strong because of this. Hopefully, some resolution can be reached this year, your family can be reunited and you can get on with your life. Both of you will be in my thoughts and I am wishing the best for your family. Brenda |
| Thinking of you both and praying all this will be resolved soon and you can all be together as a family again.
Just unbelieveable what they are doing to you, red tape gone mad.
Carl, michele hang in there and hopefully common sense will prevail with these idiots you are having to dealing with.  |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|