Editor's note: Below is the complete unedited rebuttal by spokesman Tony Loeffen to the Health Unit news release issued earlier today.
*************
I just want to address a very key point.
On December 30, 2014, the Health Unit committed a material breach of the "Order for Stay", signed December 19, 2014 by the Health Unit and Rob Szalas.
Sections 12 and 13 of that agreement specifically provide that in the event of an allegation that the conditions of Dunaj's release were violated by Mr. Szalas, Dunaj would be returned to the North Bay Humane Society, pending a review of the allegations. If the allegations were found to have merit, then Dunaj would remain at the Humane Society until the appeal had been heard. If the allegations of a violation of the terms were found to lack merit, then Dunaj would be returned to Rob pending the appeal.
The material breach of the agreement on the part of the Health Unit, in Rob's opinion, terminated the agreement.
Here is my witness statement from Dec. 30, 2014.
***
At approximately 11:00 AM on the morning of December 30, I arrived at The Leather Trend on Main St. East, in the company of Nancy Calliciuri, Rob Szalas, and Jennifer Cartwright.
Waiting outside were 2 employees of the Health Unit, Robert A-Muhong, and a female of asian descent whose name I neglected to write down, and do not recall.
There were 2 officers from the North Bay Police Service. Cstb Marcotte (5766) and Cstb. Corrente (5579).
In an unmarked truck there were 2 uniformed officers of the OSPCA. Natalie Rizzuti (1541) and Luke Thompson (1705).
Rob Szalas approached the group and introduced himself. He asked why they were there. Robert A-Muhong replied that they were there to take Dunaj into custody.
Rob Szalas informed them that the agreement was for him to deliver Dunaj to the Humane Society himself at noon. Robert A-Muhong said that they were present and ready to take the dog now.
Jennifer Cartwright asked why they were using an unmarked truck. She wanted to know where they were from. They said Sudbury. She wanted to know why OSPCA officers and not Humane Society employees. She asked them where they intended to take Dunaj. They told her that they could not disclose their destination.
Rob questioned Robert A-Muhong directly about where they intended to take Dunaj, and why they came to collect him rather than allowing him to deliver Dunaj at the agreed upon time. Robert A-Muhong refused to disclose where they were taking him. Rob asked him directly, if they were taking him to the North Bay Humane Society. Robert A-Muhong refused to answer. Rob reminded him that the agreement said that Dunaj would go to the North Bay Humane Society. When Rob Szalas repeated the inquiry to the officers of the OSPCA they again declined to reveal their destination.
Rob reminded Mr. A-Muhong again that the only place they were allowed to take Dunaj, under the agreement was The Humane Society.
Rob Szalas then asked Robert A-Muhong to provide some documentation of the authority he had to take Dunaj into custody. He asked for a court order or any proof that he had the right to do what he had to do.
Rob Szalas repeatedly told everyone that he intended to cooperate, but he needed certain assurances that the agreement he signed was being honoured or that they had the authority to do what they intended to do. No assurances of documentation of authority were offered.
Rob explained to them that he could not cooperate with them unless they were going to either honour the terms of the agreement, or prove their authority.
They left.
-- Tony Loeffen
***
The Health Unit violated the terms of their own agreement. They would not disclose Dunaj's destination when the agreement dictated that the only possible destination be the Humane Society. The would offer Szalas no assurance that Dunaj would be taken to the Humane Society.
The Health Unit's wanton disregard for their own signed agreements is the reason that Rob would not return Dunaj to their custody.
Bottom line is that the appeal has been dismissed on a technicality before Rob and Dunaj were able to present a case in their defence.
