Biting Back

By  | November 24, 2011 | 85 Comments | Filed under: Local News

We were informed last night that the owner of the dogs involved in the attack on Elmwood Ave. are not having the dogs put down, have appealed the Humane Society order and are looking for an alternative placement. The hearing is expected to take place Dec. 21st.

Sue Taylor, who lives at the house with her family, is emphatic about the fact that these dogs share the house with her grandchildren, and if she “Thought for a second there was any danger she’d put the dogs down herself.”

Taylor also told us that “Mr. Kitchen is getting served with a Notice to cease and desist from any further slander/libel and it will require him to be put to the strict proof of all his allegations.”

Ward Coun. Tucci has been in touch, and promised to contact Taylor when he gets back to Cambridge today.

85 Responses to Biting Back

  1. Sue Taylor November 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Thank you, Scot, for your kind support in this matter. I am also very thankful to the many members of the community who likewise can see through the sensationalism to the facts. I just wanted to drop a quick note, for now, and I will post some comments shortly. A letter will be sent to various media sources who reported on this matter – some fairly and others quite carelessly. A letter is also going out to some local authorities.

    It is important to note that by Mr. Kitchen’s own admission, these are dogs who do not attack people even when being attacked. Did anyone else happen to catch that important fact? Mr. Kitchen beat the dog with a stick and there is no report of any aggressive response to that by the dog. Really????? Mr. Kitchen has entered this house and yard all alone many times without incident. He has never been afraid of these dogs, since he has never witnessed any people aggression by these dogs. And if Ms. Kitchen has any fear of these dogs, would she so confident in walking right past their gate? No. Theirs are not the actions of fearful people.

    We all feel deeply for his loss. Oscar was very dear to us. But what would the Kitchens do had someone hit their dog with a car? Would the driver be put down? Even in the face of such grief, we must still do our best to act and react rationally and not succumb to the pressures imposed by every bully out there. We feel that it is the intent of the Kitchens to bully us into turning these dogs over to a death sentence just to satisfy what amounts to a blood lust.

    Should we tell the members of the community that when faced with this sort of adversity we are to just go ahead and keep paying more and more of our lunch money to the schoolyard bully, ask no questions, ignore all facts and lack of evidence, succumb to the malicious pressure and just suck it up?

    How much more paying, in terms of finances and stress, should this family continue doing? And it’s interesting to note that, in many matters, the system and process itself becomes a severe form of punishment. This is something folks don’t tend to understand. If you had any idea of the recent cash grabs imposed on this family and the pressures applied by certain authorities that go unchecked, you would be really shocked.

    I say enough is enough.

  2. ben tucci November 24, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    I have been in contact with Sue Taylor and have an e-mail request for a response/further background in to Bonnie Deekon.I will investigate before arriving at any of my own conclusions. All stakeholders deserve no less than to have their day voices heard and then to have appropriate action taken.
    Regards to all! BEN

  3. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 24, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Thanks Ben.

  4. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 24, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Oh, and Sue, welcome to Cambridge! (This is not the introduction I would have planned)

  5. Sue Taylor November 24, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    Thanks, Scot. My opinion of Cambridge has not been at all altered by the few. Thanks for ear, Ben. Any assistance in keeping things fair and decent would be greatly appreciated. I also want to clarify that there are no orders against these dogs and no law to force our hand into killing them or the get rid of them. We are voluntarily opting to relocate the dogs to a safe location far from this municipality in hopes of both satisfying local authorities that we’ve acted properly and the neighbours that they no longer have any problem with these dogs.

    In the past few days, the neighbours have finally stopped their dog from running at the fence and antagonizing our dogs. This simple effort on their part is much appreciated and proving to mitigate tensions between these dogs, however late the measures have been taken.

    There are indeed two sides of this story. We’ve been very good about not responding with overly emotional posts and letters, but it seems the machine does not shut down easily once fired up against someone.

  6. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 25, 2011 at 4:24 am

    Sue, we’ve heard several complaints about Bonnie Deekon and the Humane Society, and I have had personal experience with their gestapo like tactics.
    I would strongly suggest you file a FOI and get their operating budget for the last few years.(Particularly the year they had the big flood in Louisiana.A lot of people weren’t happy about the Cambridge Humane Society going there to rescue dogs.) They currently have their big annual fundraising push on and aren’t going to want negative publicity. Let’s see just how much money they get, and where’s it spent. It’ll make a good story, and the people have a right to know.
    Bonnie is like several other bureaucrats in this city who think they are ‘untouchable,” and it’s about time someone reminded them who the hell they work for.
    I have more on the Humane Society, but I’ll save it for you in case there is a hearing and you have a chance to get her on the stand. (I used to love watching you in court. They never see it coming.)
    I’m a little tied up for the next week, but I’ll be free to help you after that if things haven’t been resolved.

  7. Linda Whetham November 25, 2011 at 9:45 am

    There is a Board of Directors that run the Humane Society, Bonnie does not run this by herself, so it is unfair to blame her, does any one know who the Board of Directors are?

  8. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 9:51 am

    I have also heard from some local folks some very disturbing things. I’m far from alone in my opinion of how things often get handled and how shamefully people often are treated. There should be no need of any hearing. The best and most reasonable resolution would be that we withdraw the appeal and the ‘powers that be’ get a hold of themselves and behave in a manner best fitting of their positions. I have yet to hear back from anyone on this, but the day is yet young. I’ll keep you posted.

    Thanks so much for your kind offer. It is deeply appreciated. We have found placements for both dogs and they will be leaving here tomorrow. It was never our intent to play silly bugger with the system, even though the system certainly has proven not be above playing every dirty game going.

    Please email me at [email protected]. Any assistance, or information share, you can pass on will be most appreciated. Thanks, again, Robert.

    This has all just gone too far. Funny thing is – people in our neighbourhood are telling us we’re doing the right thing. They all know our neighbours who have created this whole mess and they’re supporting and agreeing with our decisions.

  9. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 10:50 am

    The Directors list is posted on their site at While there may be others involved in this matter, Bonnie is the mouthpiece we’ve been dealing with.

    We have 3 dogs. Two are leaving tomorrow. The one remaining was not involved and never has been involved in any incidents of any sort. Bonnie has even been going off about that dog. It’s as though she’s already planning to pounce again if we don’t buckle under to the bully. You see the dilemma here with abuse of power and the dangers of letting it run rampant and unchecked? And it’s Bonnie who acts in a manner unbecoming of one in her position. The animal control officers we’ve dealt with have been excellent. It’s only Bonnie who’s crazy to deal with.

    The owner of these dogs has been a dog owner his entire life without incident. This is not a case of an incapable owner. This is a case of media sensationalism fired up by the bully next door and perpetuated by Bonnie, who has shown herself to be just another bully we have to deal with.

    But the bully is NOT getting my lunch money.

  10. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 25, 2011 at 10:53 am

    I snapped a bit when I woke up at 3:30 to get some work done when it’s quiet, and opened my email. They have found a home for the dogs far away from Cambridge, they have spent their kids Christmas money, and they have been blasted all over the news.
    Let the dogs move away and let the matter drop.

  11. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Agreed, Scot. This is ridiculous and when and where does it end? I think that if Cambridge is place where F.&C.S. supervisors cannot accept the word of their own workers and the Humane Society cannot accept the word of their own Animal Control officers and refuse to acknowledge the laws, then Cambridge is far from in the clear even with the resolution of this one matter. How many others will suffer likewise? This is a very good time for those in positions of power to finally set things straight and do right for once. This is the best message for the community, serving good and proper justice.

  12. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 11:55 am

    I was just outside and notice a CTV van in front of the neighbours’ house and there’s a Uhaul truck sitting in the driveway. What on earth this guy is up now, is simply beyond my scope. But didn’t I tell you that it just never ends? We have not spoken to him, despite his outrageous behaviour and harassment, we’ve not gone on any media or neighbourhood campaigns of our own, we have kept our dogs under strict control, and done far more than any law imposes. No one could have taken greater measures to do right here. The one thing we did not do was impose a death sentence on dogs who have never shown any people aggression, even when being beaten with a stick. Bonnie said in the press she verified these events and that includes this FACT. And contrary to Bonnie’s statement, there have been no previous incidents with these dogs and should have never spoken that lie as fact she can’t possibly verify.

  13. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 25, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    They like the spotlight. 15 minutes isn’t enough for some people. You know where the courthouse is.

  14. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    I have still heard nothing from Bonnie Deekon (not surprising). I would think that if she were truly interested in doing right, she would make at least some token effort to contact us. F.&C.S. are still fired up at management level. Despite the absence of any evidence and the position of their own worker, they called to confirm that the children were at their other grandparents’ house and not here with the ‘dangerous dogs’. That’s so pathetic. This machine just stops at nothing. Despite what any other expert has to say, they will even punish these children to get more lunch money. I can’t stand bullies.

    I have some good people in the wings just waiting to see how much further these bullies are permitted to go. In the end, unless these bullies in power are brought under control, it’s not going to go as nicely in the end as they think. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that the only vicious beings we’re dealing with here are the humans in power.


  15. Mrs. R.D.M November 25, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    My dog was attacked by a neighbors dog, while my children were out walking him. He wasn’t seriously hurt, a few puncture wounds, but the attack certainy took years off his life (he has back problems from then on out). My children were frightened for a very long time. Still, I did not ask for the dog to be put down, actually, I didn’t get a chance to ask for anything…Bonnie and her crew refused to return my repeated phone calls. I was hoping for a dangerous dog designation..alas, I didn’t merit a phone call.

    Frankly, the staff at the humane society are rude and certainly give the feeling of being “untouchable”. Ive had the misfortune of dealing with them on more than one occasion.

  16. Sue Taylor November 25, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    Mrs. R.D.M.,
    I feel for you, I really do. It saddens me when animal is harmed. Some of this provinces best animal activists are very close friends of mine and I support their efforts. But, sadly, accidents happen. Nothing happened here due to any willful act of anyone. And these dogs aren’t interested in harming people, or even other dogs. They just don’t like the dogs of these particular neighbours who have allowed their dogs to run our fence relentlessly agitating these dogs. They’ve never before had a change to confront them. But that night, a visitor carelessly left the back gate open not foreseeing what would happen, and the neighbour just happened to be walking by at that time. But even when beaten with a stick, the dogs did not turn on any person. They just ran back into their yard and up to their back door. But Bonnie cannot accept this fact, although she claims to have verified the events.

    Others have also told me about their dealings with the Humane Society of Cambridge and they agree with you, as do I. You are far from alone in your beliefs. You would be surprised how many people have contacted us and support us in our decision and our beliefs. Our neighbours, however, are not looking very good in this community. This has been one terrible fiasco I would never have believed had I not been dealing with it first hand. People have got to start sticking up for themselves. As I say – No more money gets paid to the schoolyard bullies.

  17. Sue Taylor November 27, 2011 at 12:25 am

    A quick note to let you know the dogs are now gone and will never be returning to this municipality nor anywhere near here. As you know, we did this in the absence of any legal obligation. This was voluntarily done for reasons you well know. But the problem with the dog next door continues. Again today, that dog jumped at someone in the neighbourhood who told Ms. Kitchen to get that dog under control. This so-called guide dog can’t even pass the house of another of our neighbours without going for her cat. Yet another neighbour has also complained to the Kitchens about that dog going after their dog. They have told Ms. Kitchen that dog should not be used as a guide dog and she needs to get that dog under control. Even the dog she had put down after the incident with our dogs bit her in the face. Julia had to take her to the hospital because Mr. Kitchen was too drunk. Our dogs didn’t go after dogs or people. They just didn’t like THOSE dogs. Her dog even bit its own owner. And her guide dog continues his aggression unchecked by authorities. This is sickening. The only dogs around here that have bitten people and show aggressive behaviour toward other dogs are owned by the Kitchens. Neat, huh? But I just hope things settle down some now that our dogs are of no further consequence to them.

  18. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 27, 2011 at 1:53 am

    Can you file a FOI for complaints about their dogs?

  19. Robert Ross November 27, 2011 at 7:24 am

    May depend on who the complaint was filed with.If it was the City,maybe,depending on privacy policy….but the Humane Society probably not.The Humane Society is a private organization and recieves no money from the City, with the exception of the Animal Control contract.May require a subpoena.

  20. Margaret Barr November 27, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Mrs. R.D.M. (and others) I certainly couldn’t tell you why the Humane Society doesn’t return calls, but can certainly attest to the fact that it didn’t return mine. I left a message for Bonnie about this time last year, asking her to phone me. I didn’t say why, just left my name and number. I was calling to ask if I could make a $100 donation to the HS with my Credit Card, or if I should write a cheque and drop it off. Since I never received a return call, I didn’t donate anything (at that particular time, or since).

    Maybe the HS should remember that sometimes it pays to return calls. Actually it pays all the time to return calls…..whether it be through obtaining financial assistance or creating goodwill and trust in the community.

  21. Sue Taylor November 27, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    To this date, we have yet to hear from Bonnie or anyone else from the Cambridge and District Humane Society (CDHS). We’re not surprised, in our case, though. She’s said enough already. I agree that it’s just plain rude of someone in her position to fail to return calls. And how much has her actions cost the Humane Society? I can assure you that you are not the only one who is refusing to provide funding, choosing rather to give those funds to other causes. This is also a concern of mine. The good that may be done by the CDHS is, in many ways, also undermined by Bonnie’s unprofessional behaviour and outrageous treatment of members of this community.

    I think the SPCA and CDHS would do far better to have that woman replaced. Anyone willing to support this cause should also be willing to continue in her absence. She can’t be the only one around who can do her job. And I’m darn sure it can be done a whole lot better by someone who isn’t just power hungry, manipulative, conniving, heartless and incapable of getting a story straight.

  22. Sue Taylor November 27, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Scot and Ross,
    The Cambridge & District Humane Society (CDHS) is an Affiliate Member of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Its Regional Boundaries are the City of Cambridge, Glen Morris and St. George. The SPCA and CDHS are registered charities, but they have certain powers afforded them regarding animal treatment and control. The City of Cambridge (City) has appointed the CDHS as its Pound Keeper within the meaning of City By-Law 65-08, governing this matter. Animal Control is a City Department. see: No matter how you want to look at this at law, the City has a well established responsibility in this matter that should not be taken lightly or ignored. While it’s true the CDHS is a private organization, the City has appointed it and given it powers to act on its behalf serving as an agent just as with any other enforcement arm. As such, they will supply the City with information regarding any matter on behalf of which they acted as agents for the City. So, the City can never be in the dark on anything they do unless they choose to be.

    Of course, much may be gained by way of FOI requests on various levels. This process has served well many times. But since the City is quite able to obtain any information from its agents, officers and employees, it should just do so. I don’t think the City should do an open information share on every matter put before them. That’s only common sense. But the least that it should do is look into whether or not any previous complaints have been received by any of its agents, officers, and employees and act on them accordingly.

    You can find the bylaw here: and also a link to CDHS.

  23. Sue Taylor November 27, 2011 at 6:02 pm


    You were asking about some of Bonnie’s supporters. You can see some of the sponsors listed at this link which includes the Cambridge Times. But it’s become obvious to me that while the public may generally be supportive of the Humane Society as an organization, this community has shared with me many concerns regarding Bonnie’s conduct and how she uses her position there.

    Some further clarity one part of this machine operates

  24. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 27, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Sue, just so you know your comments weren’t posted right away because anything with more than 1 link is held for moderation to avoid spam.
    I’m going to stay out of it, you seem to be doing your home work.

  25. Sue Taylor November 27, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    I’m definitely doing my homework. And the more I confer with others, while researching this thing, the more it’s apparent that the issue is far more substantial. The process itself has so many problems. But I guess that’s why it’s good someone is finally taking a good, hard look at this.

  26. Mrs. R.D.M November 28, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Bonnie reminds me a lot of Tim Trow in the sense that she acts like a bully and many of her staff are following her lead. I don’t doubt they love animals and save lives every day but having respect for human counterparts is also important. I was a long time, anonymous donor of the CDHS until they wouldnt return my phone calls when I was in need. I’ve never given them another dollar nor will I until I see some accountability within that organization.

  27. Hags November 28, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Citizens Scot and Jimm, a story needs to have two sides…has anyone approached Mr. Kitchen for his thoughts?
    I’m usually disinterested in dogs and their owners but am interested in a good cllean fight.
    Will Mr. Kitchen have a say?

  28. Margaret Barr November 28, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I, too, think Bonnie has the best interests of the animals and does save lives every day. I don’t consider her a ‘bully’ (never seen that side of her). But from personal experience I think she can appear to be so, whether intended or not.

    I think the HS needs someone who takes over the public relations end of things. Maybe even a general message center, where one member of staff could be in charge of handling all messages…..and making sure that no message is ignored. Any business or organization that ignores messages, and doesn’t return calls, is not merely on a slippery slope. It is on the down-hill slide.

  29. Margaret Barr November 28, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Scot, I think Hags is correct. Perhps you should contact Mr. Kitchen and ask him to voice his side here, if he so wishes. He may not even be aware of this site and have no idea that he can participate.

  30. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 28, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Margaret, you know how busy I am right now. Mr. Kitchen doesn’t seem to have any problem finding the media so far. The issue here doesn’t seem to be the situation with the Kitchens as the way it was treated by the Humane Society.
    That being said, Sue Taylor doesn’t need my help taking on the bereaucracy;she’s the one who taught me.

  31. Malcolm November 28, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Don’t know why people can’t get responsibility right. You as the parent of kids, owner of animals are responsible for all they do plus yourself. Excuses of door left open kid took off got hit by car, left pan on stove burnt kitchen down, gate left open dogs got out killed a kid or a dog. All nonsense and avoiding responsibility. You are at fault, so lock the gate or door. As for bitching about the Humane Society that doesn’t cut it either. Stop whining. What on earth does Ben Tucci have to do with your problems. Fix your own problem. What’s next you move the dogs then move yourself? As a former Ontario Humane Society Adviser and volunteer with Great Danes in Distress, let me just say I have removed from this area and around, a wrestling bear that killed the owners wife, a gorilla being held in a garage and milked for seman, lions, tigers, snakes, caymans (mini type croc) consulted with Zoos,Parks & Aquariums and yes trained & handled bomb/drug dogs All animals can go back to being what they are, as do people. That would be tribleism or pack running hooligins even dogs in a pack getting excited. Ultimately you are responsible for your mess.

  32. les November 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    As the Human Society is a department of the city, the man who currently is the CAO is Jim King. If there are concerns about a city department, he is the person responsible to fix it.
    When that fails, you call your councilor who then will likely call Jim King to find out what is going on.
    The city has a call back policy for all departments, in this case the pound as well. If it is not being adhered to, then the top cop, the CAO needs a phone call.

  33. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 28, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    As for Ben’s involvement, as with Rick Cowsills, they are on the advisory committee and it was at my suggestion.
    While I’m at it, I don’t recognize a single name from the board of directors. This is a little unusual for me, does anyone know who these people are? President: Lesley Love,
    Vice President: Rick Bennett
    Treasurer: Rob Duncan
    Secretary: Katherine Hughes
    Past President: Glenda Winser
    Carly Hills
    Ted McCollum
    Shelagh Wakely

  34. Hags November 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Scot,you are a journalist…so, it’s your job to seek out the other side of the story. I don’t like seeing someone pummeled without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

  35. Robert Ross November 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    The Humane Society is not a City department.It is a not for profit agency, the only relation to the City is the animal control contract.

    The enforcement/investigative powers comes from the Ontario SPCA Act.

    As a private entity they are no more a City Dept, than a paving contractor is.

  36. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Hags, if I were going to write something for print I would contact them. If “it’s my job to seek out the other side of the story” for everything that everybody posts, I’m going to be pretty busy.I wonder what Alice Cooper, David Bowie and Marilyn Manson have to say in response to your column, is it my responsibility to track them down and get their side?
    What would you suggest I do, knock on the Kitchen’s door and say “Do you see what your neighbours are saying about you on the internet?”
    Besides, I think they did a pretty good job of getting their side out with the papers and TV.
    Now no one is answering my question, who are the people on the board?

  37. Mrs. R.D.M November 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Make no mistake, the issue with the dog attack is the responsibility of Ms. Taylor and family. It was an accident, no doubt, but accidents do have consequences. I was very glad to hear they paid the vet bill, no questions asked, thats “good people”. I commented only because Bonnie Deekon does have a poor reputation in terms of dealing with the public and frankly, I’m glad someone is finally talking about it.

    And Scot, I do know Dr. Bennett, he is a local vet.

  38. les November 28, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Robert, true they are a private entity, but they are representing the city of cambridge as their contracted agent for a set period of time. Therefore, the city has a say in their behavior toward the public that is paying the bill. At the very least, the city can and should be making a call advising them that they have a responsiblity to get back to the public relative to complaints and concerns that are not just to do with their dealings with the animals.
    If a company wants to take on a contract which the city is issuing as a farmed out duty, they must be held to all the same standards as would staff that were directly employed by the city.

  39. Sue Taylor November 28, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    Mrs. RDM,
    Are you referring to Tim Trow, formerly with the Toronto Humane Society? I’m familiar with that case and I’ve personally read through legal documentation on that matter including the appeal decision and evidence presented as well as the statements from various investigators into that matter. Very interesting what went on there.

    I agree with you that accountability is very important, especially for public sector and charitable organizations. I believe the CDHS is providing a much needed service to this community and I support their efforts. However, the fact remains that this process has some very real problems and many members of this community are wondering if anyone in power cares enough to do something about it.

  40. Sue Taylor November 28, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    Mr. Kitchen has had more press than anyone on this side. The Humane Society jumped the gun, neglected this side, and succumbed to pressure and applied plenty of their own (highly unprofessional) which led to this fiasco. I welcome anyone to contact the Kitchens for their side. Go ahead. While you’re at it, ask about their dog who bit Mrs. Kitchen right in her face. Ask them how many have told them to get their dog other under control, which would have gone a long way in preventing this. Ask them if they’ve offered even on speck of evidence in support of their claims. I’d love to see the response.

  41. Robert Ross November 28, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Scot, The board is elected by the memebership. As in most cases in such an organization, it has many donors but few actual members.Many of these types of organizations have a very small core membership group that are very involved, and make most of the decisions, this is not necessarily be design, rather it is a reality caused by people’s lack of time, disinterest, ignorance etc.So you end up with a “good old boy’s/girl’s club”
    Many times the way to effect change in non-profits is to stack the memberships in favour of change and to nominate your candidates of choice to key positions, very similar to political candidate elections.

  42. Sue Taylor November 28, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    We certainly do understand responsibility. Accordingly, we have done more than any law could enforce. The problems are with the process and the fact that a huge contributing factor remains unchecked, and so it continues. Please keep in mind that nothing was done intentionally and neither were we negligent in response. We have behaved very responsibly through all of this. The same cannot be said of certain of those in positions of authority. And I’ve made it clear that I am not against the Humane Society as an organization that provides a necessary resource. I also have not been an aggressor here. I’m merely responding to posts, as is my right regardless of how I may be misinterpreted.

    As for Mr. Tucci – I have responded to his email and comments, as can be easily determined by viewing comments on this article posted above yours. And I can tell you that I, and others, appreciate and respect him for so doing. As for why I would want to speak to Mr. Tucci on this matter, I suggest you consult with Mr. Tucci who just happens to be in a position to help to fix this. Since we and others in this community are dealing with certain powers run amok, how would you suggest we ‘fix our own problem’. tisk tisk… The process has a problem and the system as it’s administrated IS the problem and the system is NOT my mess. It is indeed the responsibility of those in governorship.

    I believe I may know who you are, so some of your comments ‘sort of’ make some sense to me. But you need to look into this a little deeper before ranting any further.

  43. Sue Taylor November 28, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    Thank you so much just for making good sense. I’m aware of Jim King’s position and its scope. And thank you for addressing responsibility. Since when is it up to the members of the community to fix this? I’ll just leave that one at that for now. You should see Bonnie’s entry at Power Profiles. According to that entry, the dog pound is a branch of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge and Bonnie is Branch Manager. She’s really something. see:,+THE-CAMBRIDGE-ON-(519)+623-6323

    I agree with your response to Robert completely with respect to the City’s having a say in their behaviour and the very least they could do. Also, Mr. Tucci is my Ward Councillor. And I’m far from the only resident in this ward concerned over the issues here.

  44. Sue Taylor November 29, 2011 at 12:17 am

    If I knew nothing more of the Board than that the President is Lesley Love, I would be hopeful that there is someone there who favours common sense and has some concern for law. This is a little about Lesley as posted by Gowlings.

    “Lesley Love is an associate with Gowlings’ Waterloo office, practising in the Employment and Labour Law Group. Lesley specializes in Canadian and United States immigration matters, providing customized immigration services to individuals and businesses.”

  45. Sue Taylor November 29, 2011 at 12:40 am

    It’s just a matter of time before the community does just as you’ve stated. The membership is not difficult to reach, educate, and point in the right direction toward someone who can far better represent this community. The problem with the system, the process and administration, is still another matter. Anyone in any position of authority having any connection with this matter and resulting process should know the law, process, administration and all aspects. When this goes unchecked, problems ensue because sooner or later someone does speak up.

  46. Margaret Barr November 29, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Scot, let’s be clear here……You are entirely correct that “it’s (not your) job to seek out the other side of the story for everything that everybody posts.” However, in this case it was YOU who started the ‘story’ and posted the original thread. As a journalist, it IS your responsibility to present both sides, when you are the one presenting the story. Period. No ifs and or buts…

  47. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    The “original story” is a clarification of the articles in The Times and The Record.
    Am I supposed to do their jobs too?
    It’s not the Kitchens who are being discussed here, it is the Humane Society.
    As far as that goes, yes, I was in touch with Bonnie Deakon last week. She is well aware of the discussions here, and is welcome to comment.

  48. Hags November 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Margaret, funny but in the Husky mauls Chihuaha story, the Citizen did a great job in tracking down the party who was recklessly smeared. This time however….?

  49. les November 29, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Sue, I just want to restate my point of contacting the city formally with your complaint. Others who have issues must do the same.
    The city cannot be held responsible for a sub contractor being re-hired next term unless they have evidence as to why they should or should not be.
    This blog cannot be taken as ” having filed a complaint” nor can it be taken as having notified Ms. Deakon of a situation that needs to be rectified, even if she is aware of comments being posted on it.
    To be totally fair to all involved, that being the subcontractor and the tax payers footing the bills, I suggest a formal complaint letter be sent to her copied to the CAO as well as to the ward councilor so that it is now a matter of official record.
    Should the city receive a number of such letters which must go on file, the next contract negotiation may result in it being issued to someone else if justified. Nothing can change if such procedures are not followed.

  50. Scot Ferguson-Barber November 29, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    Hags, in that situation someone wrote on The Times website she should contact us. (I was speaking to Robyn today, she wants to write for us)
    And again, this is not about the Kitchens.
    The “party who was recklessly smeared” is the Humane Society, and again, I did contact them.
    (You are typing when you should be reading, why do you make me repeat myself?)

  51. Hags November 29, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Scot, Margaret and I are not amused by your cavalier attitude and capricious meanderings concerning equity for the Kitchens and their sinks.
    Second last, the fault that you can’t grasp our sage depositions is because you are an obtuse cad.
    Last,everything you have posted in this matter has been a blunt equivocation…..and Margaret says you’re a morosely lugubrious mullet headed fart!

  52. Sue Taylor November 29, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    Many laws have been amended in consideration of the nature of online blogging, social networks, and the growing scope of the internet. The Kitchens have had much press. And their stories, as posted in various newspapers and aired on tv, are inconsistent and false statements have been made by them and by Bonnie. I welcome you to contact them and post their comments here. It would be interesting to see what yet another version of this might look like.

    And no party, other than the members of this household, has been recklessly smeared. We all agree that the Humane Society provides a valuable resource to this City and we support its continued efforts. But anyone acting as an enforcement officer, enforcing this City’s bylaws, has to be accountable for their actions. Anyone enforcing a law or bylaw ought to have a solid understanding of it and know what is good and proper administration and process. This matters plenty in the broader scope of things.

    I’ve just been finishing up some research following which letters will go out to various parties in an effort to ensure that this is brought to the attention of the right people. This is good for the entire community.

    You know that, in not so distant a past, I’ve had to deal similarly with bylaw enforcement in another municipality. At first, things were edgy. That officer called to yell and scream at me for trying to get him fired, which couldn’t have been further from the truth. But that same officer, a few months after we brought things to proper resolution, actually directed some folks my way to help them out with similar issues. Even the most difficult matters can come to mutually acceptable resolution when the parties involved are reasonable.

    I’m hoping my experience with the City of Cambridge will be no less.

  53. Curmudgeon November 29, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Come on Scot, relent and give the populace what they want. More dirt. You know as well as I that when Hags has to dust off his work worn thesaurus the thread is coming to a close.
    Kudos to Ms Taylor for slogging through this ordeal to enlighten us all and better the community.
    I for one, under the cover of darkness, offer up a single Z.

  54. Sandra Hill November 30, 2011 at 8:06 am

    With all due respect – Sue I personally have raised & bread English bulldogs for many years.Having 3 dogs in one household does cause a concern in my opinion – all dogs need attention and with your son working and raising a family – one has to wonder how much time was spent with each dog.
    I personally have experienced this with my English bulldogs getting jealous of one another. They are very good with children but if there is not enough time well spent individual dogs will get jealous. This is just not bulldogs – these would remain the same for any dogs – such as Ms Kitchen dogs
    I have often wondered why people purchase dogs – they need a huge amount of attention just like raising a child. I have explained to other bulldog owners who have requested my help you need to treat your dog just like a child – never allow your dog to be the aggressor and know where they are at all times.

    I have often wondered if you live in the City and own a dog – and allow your dog to have access to your back yard which is fenced you should still keep an eye on the dog. Just because a yard is fenced does not give grounds for an owner of a dog to be innocent.

    Dogs also need respect and I have great concern for the attack Mr Kitchen made upon your sons dogs hitting them with a stick. This is unacceptable.

    What caused your sons dogs to attack? Dogs do not forget – have these dogs been in contact with Ms Kitchen previously. We may never know.

    I understand your point of gone too far – Losing your dog is like losing a family member and Ms Kitchen was not in the right state of mind to state that your sons dogs need to be put down – this is unthinkable in my opinion. I am so very grateful that you are standing up and allowing these dogs go to a good home. The media does go to extremes sometimes without getting all the facts.

    If your family is interested in meeting me I would be so grateful to come to your home and give you some advice on how I raised my English Bulldogs.
    This is in memory of my 14 year old Tailgate!! – Come out to the Hespeler Santa Claus Parade on Saturday – you will see my bulldog on the front of my Big White Tractor to keep his memory of all love Tailgate gave too my family and friends. We miss him dearly!

  55. Sue Taylor November 30, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Well, Scot. I wouldn’t be too concerned about giving the Kitchens opportunity to comment. I saw Ms. Kitchen today. We were both on the same bus. She sat in the first seat, directly behind the driver, and I sat near the back doors. I can now confirm what others have told me, since I have now personally heard it. Ms. Kitchen was talking about this incident loudly enough that I could clearly hear her. She was telling people that we’ve been writing a lot of “stuff about this” online. Since this is the only site on which I’m writing, it’s fair to say the Kitchens are aware and have chosen not to respond. No surprise there, since this is the one place where the truth is being told and they cannot possibly challenge truthfully anything I’ve written or said.

    Among the many falsehoods I heard Ms. Kitchen say is that we “gave those dogs to someone else and didn’t even bother to tell those people about all this and what happened”. Really? And how could she possibly claim to know what transpired between us and the new owners. You see? The Kitchens take no care at all for the truth. And that’s funny, since I happen to have a signed document stating that I turned over the dogs with copies of all vet records, vaccination records, tags, licences, notice of designation, notice of hearing, emails, newspaper articles, and everything else we have. The new owners are well aware of what’s happened here. It’s because of all the idiotic press the Kitchens maliciously created that these new owners contacted us. There are good people out there who will help and know right from wrong.

    Ms. Kitchen also stated things the SPCA apparently told her that are not true. And she seems to feel that they support her in what she’s doing. I said nothing in response while still on the bus. I’m just not that way. We both got off at the same place. I followed and waited until she was alone and did my best to have a decent conversation with her. I told her that Julia did not do anything to her on purpose and that Julia has been a very good friend to her for many years and does not deserve this. I told her no matter how bad we feel, none of can bring Oscar back and that continuing this solves nothing. She said: “Oh don’t even try to talk to me. You’re all getting it.” What she means by that threat, I can only imagine. But as I’ve said before, the only vicious beings we’re dealing with here are the human kind.

    If the SPCA has given the Kitchens false or misleading information, they need to take appropriate steps to correct that. And if they are continuing to fuel these fires, they need to stop. How about the SPCA actually doing something for the greater good for a change? Now, that would be nice.

  56. A C November 30, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    As an outsider reading this thread, all I see is the irony in a hypocritic situation. Sue, you go on and on about how you don’t like bullies and that you won’t let the bullies get your lunch money. You beat this story like the proverbial dead horse. You clearly love to listen to yourself. To an outsider, this comes off as nothing but a smear campaign against the Cambridge & District Humane Society simply because you want someone to blame. While you claim to have taken responsibility for your actions, offering to pay the vet bill and relocating the dogs before being ordered to do so, you are still on here ranting. In your rants, you are trying to throw the focus off yourself. It was YOUR dogs that did something, and because of that you are finding yourself in this situation. As mentioned by another user, you are responsible for your dogs’ actions just as parents are responsible for their kids’ actions. In constantly posting negative comments on here about the Humane Society and its staff, it is you who comes off as a bully. It is you who is name calling in the direction of Bonnie Deekon.

    Our local Humane Society is a stand-up organization. It runs well under the direction of Bonnie Deekon and is an organization we should be proud of. To try to pick such an organization apart makes you appear as though you like to search for the bad things instead of seeing the big picture and recognizing all the good they do. I have helped fundraise for the Humane Society since Bonnie took over. I have been happy to support them and their staff. You are the one being the bully here. Cyber-bullying has been a topic in the news lately. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, unless your focus in life is solely on trying to discredit the Humane Society and in doing so, the rest of the world has slipped past your scope. You are cyber bullying. It would be in your best interests to cease and desist. You stated your opinion once. We heard you. Now move on.

  57. Sue Taylor November 30, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    My son has been a dog owner his entire life without incident. And these dogs have lived beside the Kitchens for many years without incident. No one has ever seen them running loose in all these years. The dogs walked to school with my grandson and were no strangers to our neighbourhood park and children. A visitor left the gate open at the same time Ms. Kitchen was walking by with her dog. The dogs aren’t interested in attacking dogs. Other dog owners have visited here many times with their dogs and these dogs have not done any harm to them or their dogs. These dogs are NOT dangerous dogs. They just didn’t like THOSE dogs who were constantly provoking them. Even when beaten with an ironwood stick by Mr. Kitchen, they made no attempt to harm anyone. Two police officers and an Animal Control officer walked into our home and the dogs showed no aggression at all to these three strangers they’d never seen before. Are these really the actions of dangerous dogs? Even when we turned them over to their new owners, they showed no aggression of any sort. They got into a strange vehicle with strangers and made no effort to put up hackles, show teeth, flag with their tails, bark at them – nothing. People who know these dogs are not in support of the Kitchens’ actions and those of local authorities.

    Her dogs have been permitted to run along our fence barking at our dogs and to jump at them whenever they saw them. This problem went ignored by the Kitchens who have only now made the effort to stop their remaining dog from doing this and it’s gone a long way. The dog that remains here is no longer being agitated which will help substantially in preventing any further problems. The Kitchens still have a dog, used as a guide dog, that continues to show aggression and should go back for retraining. The dog seems okay on the bus, but there are no other dogs on the bus.

    We have acted very responsibly in all of this. We have paid all transportation and vet costs to the Kitchens. (We have yet to receive any vet bills or vet’s opinion with respect to the $1,500.00 amount they demanded we pay and to verify that their dog had to be put down.) We have paid for extra licensing fees and fines. We have installed a new lock for the back gate that prevents anyone from entering without a key, which ensures no one can open that gate again. And we paid all these costs without hesitation. We have been outright defamed by the Kitchens with their slander and libel, both in the community and in the press, and harassed by the Kitchens. They even went so far as to go door to door in our neighbourhood, slandering us with our neighbours. When we tried to ask them to not do this, Mr. Kitchen came at my daughter-in-law with a stick in front of witnesses. He yelled at us that he was going to get those dogs killed and we couldn’t stop him. The Kitchens have gone on a rampage.

    I appreciate your kind offer to help us. Send me an email with your contact info at [email protected]. I would love to meet with you. And thanks for your kind support of our decision to save, not kill dogs.

  58. Sue Taylor November 30, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Can you read? And are you being somehow forced to read these posts? Tell me how many times I’ve repeated that I believe the Humane Society to be a good and valuable resource for this community? I’ve make it clear that I support their continued efforts and I have no intention of causing harm to them as an organization. I’ve also made it clear that I am a respondent, only, and not an aggressor. And either you’re an outsider or you’re someone familiar with the society and their staff. Pick one and stick to it. Interesting that you would choose the term ‘hypocritic’. I’ll just leave that one at that.

    I have a right to respond and no one is permitted to hinder me in the securing and enforcing of my rights. As for cyberbulling, I suggest you weigh this against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I’ve followed this law since the Phoebe Prince case (Phoebe’s Law) and I’m aware of how it works. I am hardly a bully and you would no one who knows me who would agree with that assessment. And contrary to your false statement, the Humane Society were not intending to order us to relocate the dogs. You need to check your facts. We had no choice but to get rid of the dogs, even though there is no law that could force us, because of the situation with the neighbours and the resulting onslaught. We also feared for their safety.

    When anyone in any position of authority oversteps their boundaries and/or acts in any unprofessional manner, it behooves the community to come forward with it. What saddens me further is that I know of others who are too afraid to come forward with similar stories. The community should not fear those who are supposed to be here to protect us and our animals. This is just wrong. I’m well aware of the good that’s been done. And I didn’t have to go searching for “the bad things” – they came right to my door. I understand you sticking up for someone you know, but you’re clearly not as in-the-know on this matter as you come across. If you don’t want to read this post, don’t. If you don’t want me responding, don’t direct your posts at me. And especially don’t make any further false statements.

  59. A C November 30, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Nowhere did I say that the Humane Society was planning on ordering you to relocate your dogs. I said you relocated them before anyone ordered you to, as in it hadn’t happened yet, as in there was no such ordering. I should have been more clear in my choice of words.

    To be clear, I am bothered by the fact that you’re saying negative things about CDHS. They did not choose to get involved — it is their duty when an animal is involved. YOUR issue is with the other family (and for good reason, considering how this has escalated and especially after you say you were on the bus and heard it yourself). Bonnie and her staff do their jobs well. Prior to Bonnie, the CDHS did not run as well as it now does. You’re new to Cambridge and understandably wouldn’t know this. I have never heard of anyone in town complaining about unanswered/unreturned calls. Human error can happen (an example of which is my not being perfectly clear in my first comment and you misinterpretting what I meant). Messages may not get received. But to dump all over CDHS and specifically with Bonnie as you’re doing is misguided. You have a right to be mad at your neighbour. For that, I don’t blame you. Cyber-bullying Bonnie and CDHS is not the way to go because they’re not to blame for any of this.

    Finally, I never said not to reply to my post. I advised you to cease and decist with your cyber-bullying. You’re more than welcome to respond to my post. If above is any indication, you won’t be able to help yourself — I’m sure I’ll get an earful. Go on about the situation all you like, but lay off the Humane Society and its executive director: they’re not the ones at fault.

  60. Sandra Hill November 30, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Bonnie Deekon, executive director of the Cambridge and District Humane Society

    According to Bonnie Deekon, executive director of the Cambridge and District Humane Society, the most recent incident could have been avoided if the victim’s owner filed a complaint when her guide dog was attacked previously.

    Why would Bonnie state this without proof!!!!

    Deekon said there is a third dog living in the home, also an “American bulldog”, that the Humane Society can’t do much about. They’re not pit bulls, the owner contends.

    Why would Bonnie Deekon reference the 3 American bulldog in this manner?

    I do agree Bonnie needs to pay attention to how she deals with animal issues and be careful on how she states her opinion

    Bonnie needs to recant her comments to the public

  61. Mrs. R.D.M November 30, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    I’m sorry to say it AC but Bonnie Deekon absolutely has a reputation for being rude, dismissive and unresponsive. I don’t doubt for a minute that she loves animals and is an incredable advocate for them. However, her lack of return phone calls, in my case at least, could not have been a mistake. I called several times and left several messages. 911 was called when our dog was being attacked because our children were screaming so loudly neighbours thought it was them being ripped apart. This incident was well documented and still, no return phone call from the CDHS.

    I’ve dealt with CDHS many times and for many different reasons and I’m afraid the bad far outweighs the good. They are indeed a valuable service and I’m sure all their hearts are in the right place. However, it is my firm belief that Bonnie and her staff are sorely in need of customer service training.

  62. Sue Taylor November 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Thank you, Sandra. The facts really do speak for themselves. Regardless of the misinformed few who may not agree, everyone has to take responsibility for their parts. We are the only ones in this who have done that. We’re the ones stuck with the damage control and we’re the ones who have been mistreated.

    At first, my daughter-in-law was going to have the two dogs put down because we couldn’t get them placed fast enough and she was under a lot of pressure. When Ms. Deekon was notified of that decision, she asked “And what are you doing about the other dog”? Why would she comment at all on the other dog, that was not involved in any way? Everything is supposed to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If she doesn’t know that, then someone needs to take responsibility for setting her straight. Otherwise, a witch hunt is soon to follow.

    We filed an appeal only to afford us more time to save the dogs’ lives. It turned out we only needed one more day. The very next day someone contacted us in response to one of the many requests we sent out. If that angered anyone – too bad. We know those dogs are not dangerous dogs and should not have that designation assigned to them. It’s just wrong. Everyone who knows those dogs knows this is true and supports our decision to save them. If Bonnie continues to pursue this designation, she does so to her own shame.

  63. Sue Taylor November 30, 2011 at 11:20 pm
  64. curmudgeon January 18, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    I have been rereading some of these old posts and wish to throw out the following questions. Was there any conclusion to this article or did it die of natural causes? Have any issues been resolved with the CDHS, its board or employees? Any further issues? Any public updates? Are all the involved partys happy? This appeared to be a subject that would see some changes but the old guy takes a nap and it’s gone. The other reason for my asking is that revisiting may create a change in dialogue from the personal chats that are being posted of late.

  65. Scot Ferguson-Barber January 18, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    I’m going to let Sue answer the question as to the outcome of her case. It’s nowhere near done with Bonnie Deacon and the Humane Society.I’m accumulating information, and it’s not going to be pretty.

  66. Margaret Barr January 18, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Please, Sue, do give us an update.

  67. Sue Taylor January 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    I just saw this now, so I’ll do my best to answer with what I’m comfortable in writing on here. *sigh* Where to begin? Okay… outcome… the Human Society managed to convince the City to designate the dogs as dangerous under a City of Cambridge by-law. Problem is – the City was aware that the dogs did not reside in Cambridge when they rendered their decision. How does the City of Cambridge designated dogs, or anything else for that matter, outside of their municipal jurisdiction? Don’t know. You tell me.

    We had a hearing before a Committee, held under the Statutory Power Procedures Act (SPPA), at City Hall. Bonnie Deekon attended, but barely spoke. She had already done her dirty work, so there was really no need. An Animal Control Officer spoke. Anything she wanted added, she just whispered to him. Neat huh? She was the big mouth who created this nonsense, but for the purposes of the hearing she had nothing to say? Uh huh…

    Under the SPPA, all parties have a RIGHT to call witnesses. Before the hearing, someone holding an administrative position with the City came and told us all that ONLY those were actually there AND witnessed the events were allowed in the hearing. HUH???? I’ve attended many hearings under the SPPA and I’ve never heard of such a thing. I talked to a gentleman who attended one of these same hearings in Cambridge and he wasn’t even allowed to question his accuser. You tell me what on earth goes on here. I sure can’t tell you.

    Mrs. Kitchen, who owned the dog who was injured, was permitted to have not only one but TWO persons with her. She claimed they were both her helpers and she needed them there. She’s vision impaired, not hearing impaired. Good grief! Julia, whose dogs were the subject of the hearing, was not permitted to bring her witnesses into the hearing, but Mrs. Kitchen had two people with her and neither one of them spoke a word and had no connection with this matter. I’ve watched her mow her lawn all by herself, she rides buses by herself, walks all over the place by herself, and has proven more than capable of creating a media frenzy all by her little lonesome. But for the meeting, she ‘needed’ two helpers. Give me a break!

    Mrs. Kitchen told the Committee (testifying under oath) that the night it happened, someone pulled over in a car and she sent this person to get her husband. Just moments later, in attempting to restate her story, she told the Committee that a neighbour was passing by and she sent the neighbour to get her husband. Her husband testified that some guy came to get him. What????? Is the Committee really so stupid they didn’t catch these lies? WE sure did. And it would be in the transcripts. lol

    I could have full force slaughtered every one of them. But, for reasons I will not state here, I behaved myself. That’s what I get for playing nice. But it never occurred to me that the City would succumb to the malicious and petty foolishness of Deekon and the Kitchens and go so far as to designate a couple of dogs over which they had no clear jurisdiction. Duh!!! I was wrong. In Cambridge, this apparently can happen. And I will never, ever, ever, play so nice again. That’s for sure.

    Margaret, if you want the full skinny, I am not all opposed to telling you the whole thing exactly how it really is. You know I will. And it should have been so obvious to this Committee who’s telling the truth here. I hang my head for no one. No need. I tell the truth. But Deekon wouldn’t even look me in the eye and neither do the Kitchens. That speaks volumes all on its own.

  68. Curmudgeon January 19, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Thanks for the update Sue. I love the chatter on the Citizen and oft times like to poke at issues with my pointy stick just to get people communicating. Talking distinguishes us from all other animals. It is issues like this that deserve to remain serious at all times. History has proven that all too often the innocent man gets hung. Unfortunately apathy elects our politicians and it’s “dejavu all over again”.

  69. Sue Taylor January 19, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more. I have worked with many municipalities on many issues. I’ve depositioned on many levels and I’m far from inexperienced… or so I thought. And then I experienced Cambridge. oh my! Things are so different here than anything I’ve ever experienced before. Wow! It’s a whole other world here. FAR too much apathy.

  70. Robert Ross January 20, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Sue :You mentioned “under oath” under what jurisdiction was this sworn? I did not know there was such a thing outside of Parliament and the Courts.Makes me want a further look into that aspect.

  71. Scot Ferguson-Barber January 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    This is nowhere near finished.

  72. newsfan January 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    ” I truly believe that any owner who allows their dog out, without a leash, is an owner who isn’t thinking straight or simply doesn’t really care what happens to their animal (or Lord, forbid..anyone or anything else). Keep reporting this irresponsible pet owner……” Margaret Barr in the Cambridge Times

    When I wrote my comment about being unfairly treated on tis site, I hadn’t read this article, nor the numerous comments and articles elsewhere. You got a problem with me?? Hahaha! I think you got a BIGGER problem with Susie Q, Scot.

  73. Sue Taylor January 20, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Oh, Robert… there’s even more completely bizarre facts. It’s just astounding to me. Here’s the facts and my opinion on them.

    First of all, I pose no challenge whatsoever to the City’s authority to hold hearings under the SPPA. I’ve attended many various hearings over the past 20 years under same. I’ve just never seen any of them run like this one. This one is quite special.

    I take the audacious stripping of one’s rights very seriously and it surprised me how little care the City seemed to place on this. Maybe it’s best if I explain the process Julia experienced and the blatant disregard for her rights and freedoms.

    She has lived beside the Kitchens for five years. During that entire time, she and the Kitchens have had dogs. There has been an ongoing problem. The Kitchen’s dogs have been allowed to do whatever they please and the Kitchens have taken no measures to mitigate. The dogs have been constantly running at the fence that separates their properties. Julia redid her fence along the entire front end of her rear yard. She also installed a canopy to further block another large portion of the fence because she was concerned about Mrs. Kitchen’s dog dragging her down the stairs to rush the fence. Since she redid her yard, at her own expense, Mrs. Kitchen’s risk of injury was reduced. But the Kitchen’s dogs still were able to run the fence at the very back. Julia is the only one who took any measures at all to prevent further trouble.

    A friend came to visit and left the gate to Julia’s yard open. She did not know it was open. At the hearing, I advised the Committee that they just heard testimony that the gate was open for an hour before anyone knew. Julia’s dogs just stayed in their yard that whole time. They only left the yard when they saw Mrs. Kitchen walking by with one of her dogs. I told the Committee that they are not dangerous dogs – they don’t want to harm dogs, or people, they just don’t like THOSE dogs. And the reasons should be obvious. Julia’s dogs attacked one of Mrs. Kitchen’s dogs. She made the decision to put the dog down because he was nearly 12-years-old and already had many health problems. There is no evidence whatsoever that Julia’s dogs were the cause of death and Mrs. Kitchen admitted so under oath. The dog who died had not long before this hearing bit her right in the face. Julia had to take her to the hospital for stitches and treatment. Not a sweet, innocent dog – it’s a dog that will even bite its own owner. Julia’s dogs have never bitten anyone and there was no evidence to suggest any such aggression.

    The Kitchen’s other dog is supposed to be a service dog – a guide dog for the visually impaired. This dog has attempted to attack many people in this neighbourhood, including me. The witnesses who could testify to this and Mr. Kitchen’s rushing at Julia with his big stick were not permitted into the hearing. Neat, huh?

    We served the Kitchens with a cease and desist notice because of the stupid lies they kept telling in the press and anywhere else they could get an ear. The notice was three pages and executed. We had a third party serve it to ensure they could not say we had done something wrong. They tell so many lies, we had no confidence they wouldn’t just jump at the chance for more drama. They still phoned the police to report that we were harassing them. The police came. The officer told us that the Kitchens presented him with a one-page, unsigned paper they claimed we had given them. HUH???? Another false report based on pure lies. I showed the officer the real document we served on them and stressed it was our right to do so. The officer told us that the Kitchens had made several calls. Hilarious, since we never even talk to them. Geesh! We said we’re the ones being harassed and dragged through the coals. He told us to report any further incidents. The very next day, their dog jumped at me again and so I reported it. Mrs. Kitchen just walked away laughing, as she always does when her dog jumps at people. It’s all a joke to her. Even at the hearing, the entire time she sat in the waiting area, she was laughing with her friends/helpers and seemed to be quite enjoying herself. We sure weren’t laughing. But when it was hearing time, she was the grieved little victim. I could barf!

    Mrs. Kitchen knows this so-called guide dog can’t behave because she muzzles it when she takes it on the bus. Have you ever seen a muzzled guide dog? I believe her dog was finally sent back for retraining because the dog was not seen here for quite a while. Of course, she told the Committee she had to get rid of her dog because she couldn’t keep it safe. Safe from what??? LOL She’s really something.

    Julia paid them for the full amount they claimed their vet bills cost. To this day, they have not given her any vet bill to support their claim. And the Committee dropped the ball big time in not requesting it from her. There can be only one reason why, after repeated requests, they refuse to prove their claim. I think they are lying about this also. Lying is not something at all foreign to them. This is one thing they’ve taught me in all this. And did you know that, at the time of this hearing, Mrs. Kitchen was actually a member of one of the City’s advisory committees??????? Wow! That’s the kind of person they want? Good luck with that.

    You also should know that during the summer, while Julia was away from the house for a few weeks, Mr. Kitchen had a key and was here every single day looking after these dogs. That’s right! And he VOLUNTEERED for the job. How scared was he of these terrible dangerous dogs? It’s pathetic! Yet his testimony was quite to the contrary. They testified that apparently they made several reports of these dogs. Really? News to me. While Julia was continually doing things for them and being an excellent friend and neighbour, they were back stabbing her and telling lies? Nice people!

    The day after the dog attack, the animal control officer came here to tell us that the Humane Society was designating the dogs as dangerous. The night before, he told us that likely wouldn’t happen because he knows the dogs and the circumstances. Deekon was the deciding factor here. He gave us a notice that clearly stated we had five days to file and appeal and AFTER that expiry the designation was assigned. Julia was fined and told she also must purchase new tags from the Humane Society, which she also paid. Nice cash grab! The animal control officer told us we would have a couple of weeks to bring the dogs into compliance, should the designation remain. So, we were in no contravention of any kind at any point. Deekon alluded that we were. She and the Kitchens make a good team.

    Julia was having a hard time getting the dogs placed elsewhere with a designation on them. She was finding it unaffordable to meet all the Humane Society’s ridiculous requirements necessary if she were to keep the dogs. She was losing heart and felt pressured into putting the dogs down, which is what the Kitchens and Deekon were shooting for. Mr. Kitchen even came at Julia with a stick. He was so angry she wasn’t killing her dogs just to satisfy him. The Kitchens were even going door to door in our neighbourhood with a petition to kill the dogs. What a couple of jerks they are.

    We placed ads and contacted so many people, we can’t even remember them all. Finally, we found someone who would take them. We only needed one more day to coordinate this. So, we filed an appeal to stay the process so that we could get them relocated. Julia cancelled the vet appointment for the euthanasia, which would have been very wrong. And anyone with any brains in their heads, and claim to love dogs, should know that. Deekon was enraged by this. In an email I read from her, she stated that she had already CONTACTED THE MEDIA to report the dogs were being put down. What was she thinking? I responded by stating that Deekon should have verified her facts before going to any media and that we are not responsible for any unprofessional behaviour. When we got to City Hall to file the appeal, the clerk told us she thought the dogs were being put down. huh? Deekon was that certain of herself? Wow!

    Deekon was outraged that we filed an appeal. By the time we got back home from City Hall, Deekon had already posted a hand written note on our front door. Can you believe that? We notified the City of what we were doing. We notified them immediately upon finding a new home for the dogs. We did nothing wrong. But how dare we make an attempt to secure and enforce our RIGHTS?! Deekon was going to make sure we paid for that. A F&CS worker was here the day after the dog attack. He left here satisfied there was no threat. The animal control officer was satisfied there was no threat. The two police officers who were here also saw no evidence whatsoever of any threat of aggression from these dogs. But after we filed that appeal, suddenly there was a threat? F&CS worker came back here and told us that because of the pressure the Human Society (read Deekon) was putting on his management, he had to INSIST that we either remove the dogs from here or remove the children until the dogs are gone. Can you believe that move??? We told him the dogs will be gone in two days’ time, but we had to remove the kids from their home for that little time because ‘they’ said. Neat huh? So, even though we had a legal right to keep the dogs they were going to make darn good and sure we couldn’t secure those rights. So, yes I say BULLY and a bully of the very worst kind.

    No wonder Deekon and the Kitchens don’t look me in the eye. I wouldn’t if I were them either. OH I begged Julia to make the buggers take us to court. I would have so LOVED bringing this all into evidence and making asses out of them all.

    I could go on and on. Believe it or not, this still isn’t all that went on here. But Scot likely won’t want his site bogged with this. He knows the story and much, much more than I would chance writing here. But anyone who asks me for the whole story, I’ll certainly tell it. And it is appalling!

    519-807-6201 anyone want the whole truth, just give me a call

  74. Scot Ferguson-Barber January 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Again, this is nowhere near finished.

  75. Sue Taylor January 20, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Thanks so much for your kind support, Scot. Much appreciated. You know very well that I am not known for bringing false claims. The way this all went down is just shameful and, no matter how crazy it all seems, it is exactly as I have stated and I would challenge ANYONE to come on here and just try telling me anything at all to the contrary. Good luck with that.

  76. newsfan January 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    How could anyone here disagree with you when your side of the story is the only one enunciated? I’m waiting for the part about the letters from the lawyers.

  77. Scot Ferguson-Barber January 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Newsie, I have no problem with Suzie Q, we have been friends for 20 years. Sue and I are meeting with Doug on Monday about Enbridge, I’m waiting to see how that goes.

  78. newsfan January 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    That explains a lot. But your friendship is interfering with your judgement of people, like myself, who have not even remotely stepped out of bounds like these two ladies have. It shows.

  79. Scot Ferguson-Barber January 21, 2012 at 7:55 am

    My friendship is not interfering with my judgement whatsoever. Sue was good at research long before the internet, now she’s incredible, and she is one of the best paralegals I know when it comes to questioning witnesses, cross examinations, directs etc.
    If we can ever get Bonnie Deacon in a position where she has to answer Sue’s questions, in a hearing, I guarantee that when Sue is finished there won’t be enough of Bonnie to feed to the dogs.

  80. newsfan January 21, 2012 at 9:39 am

    It is pretty unsettling to hear a member of the media, openly admit, in writing on their website, to wanting to get a person cross-examined to the point of there being nothing left to “feed the dogs”. I think that is not only poor judgement, but incredibly unprofessional.

    I can’t believe the things being said here about people and you wonder why one would choose to remain anonymous?? People are watching you Scot. You could have a great product, but you are losing your balance and maybe even your marbles. Someone, who is your friend that is witnessing you seld-destruct needs to give you a wake up call.

  81. Scot January 21, 2012 at 10:43 am

    News, your statement is almost too idiotic to reply to. You say we have a great product, then in the next line tell me I’m doing it wrong.This site about “Social “Media,” and social media is about making change. Sociology was my major, and I’m “doing sociology.” I don’t think it’s poor judgement at all. I have had numerous complaints about Bonnie Deacon, and someone needs to do something.
    Furthermore, how dare a gutless degenerate who hides behind a mask tell me how to write? I am no where near “Self destructing,” I’m just getting warmed up, and those who are my friends are standing with me as we make some much needed changes to this city.
    I am under the definite impression that your own existance is so pathetic the only way you can raise your self esteem is by putting others down, and I wish you would go somewhere else and do it. (The Advocate encourages that type of behaviour, you will fit in very well over there.

  82. Gary Worton January 21, 2012 at 10:46 am

    I Think newsfan knows what he is doing, you guys keep replying to him thereby encouraging him.

  83. Margaret Barr January 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Gary, right on!

    Sue, it’s not as though the dog in question was taken out (or purposefully let out) without a leash. I am against anyone allowing a dog outside without a leash, but yours is an entirely different story. Don’t let the bastard(s) get you down.

  84. Sue Taylor January 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Thanks, guys. Really appreciate the support. And yes, Margaret, my perspective would be entirely different had Julia acted irresponsibly in any way or if she in any way contributed to this directly. The dogs have never been off leash when off the property. They were very well trained and had no history of aggression. But Julia has paid and paid and paid and paid for this in every way imaginable. She has acted impeccably throughout this ordeal and I commend her for that. I read your comments at the Times regarding another article and I agreed with your position on that, which is indeed entirely different than this.

    I do believe that the actions of one never justifies the actions of another. We have done our best to make it clear that we feel for the loss of that dog and we deeply regret this tragedy from which we could not possibly derive any enjoyment whatsoever. We have done our best to take every measure to ensure it can never happen again. So why would ‘authorities’ continue to proceed against Julia so shamefully, knowing full well what she had already suffered? Just because they could? And where are they getting that impression that enough is just never enough? These are serious issues. There is no justification for how this was handled by all concerned.

    For the record… many, many times I have told Scot that it’s over for us and we’re perfectly happy to let it go should no further nonsense occur here. I have no desire to rake anyone over the coals for anything. It’s just not in me. But, I have collected many stories and been contacted by many folks who have suffered similar injustices and were left feeling quite nicely raped by the system. We have also made it clear that we are not against the Humane Society, as an organization providing a necessary service. And we have no issue with the animal control people who did not behave badly in any of this. But I do believe that certain adjustments to this system must be made in the public’s best interest.

    As for the banter b/w Scot and News/Newsie/Newsfan/Anonymous Webcrawler, I couldn’t care less. Scot knows I will not respond to this person. I agree with Gary on that one. I’ve said it before and I meant it. He can believe as he likes and write as he likes. I will celebrate his right to freedom of speech and continually be thankful to be in a place where we can all have our say.

    We all know that this site and the newspaper are two separate entities. That should be obvious to anyone of even the most limited intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *