CLARK'S HARBOUR, N.S. — It’s not hard to tell there’s a special bond between Mason Landry and his dog Gizmo.
“I’m his caregiver but he’s also mine in a way. That’s how I feel about it,” said Landry in an interview at his home in Clark’s Harbour.
Gizmo is a 13-month-old mixed breed rescue dog that Landry adopted from the SPCA in January. The two were living happily in Landry’s home that he bought in November until July 15, when a knock came to the door and a letter was delivered by the Town of Clark’s Harbour bylaw officer advising Landry there had been an anonymous complaint that his dog was suspected of being one of the breeds banned by the town’s dog bylaw.
Landry was given a week to acknowledge and respond to the letter.
“If no response is received either in person or in writing to resolve this matter the Town of Clark’s Harbour will have no choice but to take this matter further, possibly resulting in court action,” read the letter.
It was the first time the bylaw had been enforced since being created in 2011. Breeds that have been deemed “fierce and dangerous” under the bylaw include “Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breed which includes any of the aforementioned breeds,” or “any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, without provocation, persons or other domestic animals; or any dog which has bitten a person or another domestic animal without provocation.”
However, Yarmouth lawyer Regan Murphy says the bylaw is not only discriminatory, its severely flawed.
“The bylaw definitely falls short of achieving what it was set out to do, but also it fails to add any sort of exceptions for circumstances like Mr. Landry’s that deal with therapy dogs. It’s a blanket discriminatory bylaw. That was its aim but it falls short of even achieving that,” said Murphy who has taken on Landry’s case pro-bono.
“It’s clear that it's flawed. It doesn’t actually give bylaw officers any sort of leeway in terms of figuring out what kind of dog this actually is, any leeway for therapy dogs or service dogs,” said Murphy, adding the town is “well aware this dog is a certified therapy dog for Mr. Landry. He has doctors who have indicated he has health issues, that this dog provides care for him. Doctors have said in letters to Mason and myself that he (Gizmo) is a benefit and is recognized under the medical system as a therapy dog who provides support to him. This dog has gone through training to be a therapy dog such as behavioural training, temperament testing, lunge testing- all of which indicate this dog is safe and can be a therapy dog. Its not every dog that’s granted that kind of status. Unfortunately, the bylaw does not provide for any sort of exemptions.”
As it stands, the town has proceeded with further legal action by issuing a notice of bylaw violation under their Dog Control By-Law on Aug. 12 for a $100 fine payable within 14 days.
“Essentially what they’ve done now is given him 14 days to respond to this fine they have given him and if he doesn’t respond to payment of the $100 fine, they will seek to prosecute the matter in court where he could be liable to a $250 fine or in default of payment, imprisonment for a period of not less than 21 days based on owning a dog which would on appearance appear to contain partial pit bull DNA,” said Murphy.
“It’s on the town to prove this dog is a pit bull,” said Murphy. “Mr. Landry has no obligation to do any sort of testing. The town has a hunch based on the look of a dog and they have not taken any sort of action to determine what sort of breed it is. In fact, the bylaw doesn’t even authorize them to take any sort of action. I know they (town council) sent Mr. Landry a letter in early August essentially asking to DNA test his dog… they said that was the route they were going to take. DNA test your dog. If its not a pit bull we will reimburse you and if it is a pit bull, remove the dog from the Town, but again the bylaw and essentially the law doesn’t require Mr. Landry to prove anything. The Town of Clark’s Harbour has to prove that, especially if it were to go to court so I don’t anticipate this matter resolving in the near future depending on how Clark’s Harbour wants to proceed with this.”
Murphy said from his perspective “one of the major things to consider” looking forward “is the threatening legal action the Town of Clark’s Harbour is potentially looking to take in regard to impounding the dog. "They have made several comments to Mr. Landry and myself if nothing happens in the next little while to resolve this issue they going to come and take the dog and impound him. They actually have authorization under the Municipal Government Act and the bylaw to essentially do whatever they want with a dog that they deem to be fierce and dangerous. Unfortunately, under the bylaw fierce and dangerous includes any breed of pit bull, any breed that they deem, so they could really do whatever they want with a dog that they have evidence is fierce and dangerous or is a pit bull or mix including disposing or killing a dog. It’s one thing if this dog was running at large, was fierce and biting people, making excessive noise but that’s not the issue here and not what they are bringing forward. It's simply based on a hunch that this dog has one percent or more pit bull in him.”
Murphy said he was going to have continued discussions with the town in the hopes of coming to a resolution, “but I guess we’ll see what happens in the next week or two,” adding if the town were to impound Gizmo, “obviously we’d have to respond in court.”
Landry said he is hoping the town will recognize Gizmo is not a fierce or aggressive animal.
“It’s a dog. It doesn’t matter what breed it is. It’s how you raise him. He adopts to your home and lifestyle, sees the way you live and treat him, he’s going to treat you the same. He’s not going to be aggressive towards me because I am his caregiver. He knows that I feed him, he knows that I gives him his treats, he knows I taught him his tricks … It’s like having a child in my house. You can’t come take my child from me. You can’t come take my dog from me. He’s family. He’s mine. I registered him for my benefits too so he could help me. He’s my boy. I can’t get rid of him.”
Landry said Gizmo is a good support.
“I relay on him every day,” he said. “Gizmo is my medication. I’m not on any sort of medication because he’s right there. He’s all I need. I rather have him in my life than be on a medication that I don’t think I need, because he’s all I need.”
Landry keeps Gizmo tied at all times when he’s outside, either on the patio or in the backyard.
“That’s his roaming grounds. All his toys are out there. When he ready to come in he taps on the door with his paw. I hear him and he comes running in. I purchased this house for me to live here. Me and my dog. Not to have to sell it six or seven months down the road. Where I am going to go? Where am I going to take my dog? I can’t just up and go. It’s not that easy for me to do that. I own this house. I can’t go buy another one at the snap of my fingers.”
Murphy said probably one of the end goals is to get the bylaw changed.
“We’re looking to hopefully resolve this in a way that Mr. Landry can remain in town with Gizmo and not have to deal with fines or anything like that,” he said.
Murphy said he is a dog lover and owner himself and his legal assistant actually has three pit bulls “so it wasn’t a difficult decision” to take on the case pro-bono. “It’s clear there are issues with the bylaw and I wanted to help Mr. Landry out as much as I could.”
There is a contingency plan in the event the town does try to impound Gizmo.
“He will go to granny’s house," said mom Paula Landry, “but that is still removing the dog from Mason. That’s his emotional support. To some people dogs are just dogs. To us a dog is a family member, so if anybody tries to come and take Mason’s dog away from him, that would be no different than somebody trying to come and take one of my children away. They’re all family.”
