• by: Kiriakos Nendos

On the 9'th of March 2016 Kiriakos Nendos and Mr. Haupt had an accident resulting in an unwelcomed death of Mr. Haupt's dog, 14 year old Dacky. Kiriakos Nendos was walking his 4 dogs Maisy the mother and her 3, 11 month old puppies in the morning and Mr. Haupt took his dog out to the Centennial Park area too. There was a regrettably an unintentional accident between them. At the moment of the accident all dogs were off leash including Mr. Haupt's dog Dacky as well. As he admitted within the reports. Legally both at fault according to the bi-laws.

On the 10'th of March at 16:50 PC Davey #9818 and PC Richmond#11065 animal services Michael Martin and media came to Mr. Nendos' house and knocked. No one was home at the time. And no further legal attempt to contact Mr. Nendos was made between March 10'th to the 15'th either by notice or by phone or any other manner. But media was contacted and Mr. Nendos' personal information was given by the authorities.. Media then began building a story about Mr. Nendos and his dogs being on the run and not to be found. even though Mr. Nendos was at home waiting to be investigated. And the story continued for the 5 days with a big hunt by authorities to track him down. Under the Dog Liability Act of Ontario a proper investigation should be conducted and and the guilty party quarantined. If unable to identify the guilty party it would be left to the courts. The investigation was one sided using public slander and conflicting internal reports within Toronto Animal services as to which dog bit, without investigating Kiriakos Nendos to fairly assess the situation. Instead the media was used by authorities as a theatrical production to legitimize a seemingly legal seizure of Mr. Nendos' 5 dogs Maisy and her 4 puppies in a 4 dog report with conflicting information as to the guilty party

On the 15'th of March 2016 media, police and animal services surround Kiriakos Nendos' house unexpectedly in the morning. Without notice, without warning without anything Media and animal services remained hidden  outside, and the police falsely, for a non criminal matter under the criminal code for an act of a dog, arrested Kiriakos Nendos criminally, for mischief under $5000. The moment Kiriakos Nendos got arrested and stepped out of his door, media suddenly appeared to take photographs. Once completely out of the way Animal Services then stepped in to seize all his 5 dogs in a 4 dog report. Essentially kidnapping and then disappearing them.

On April 18'th 34 days after seizing the dogs, in the morning PC Michael Burgess #6343 and an animal services employee served Kiriakos Nendos with 10 summons under the Dog Liability Act. In the morning of his first appearance for the criminal mischief charges. Because there was a chance they might have been withdrawn since they were not criminal. After serving Kiriakos Nendos, Burgess and the animal services employee high five each other laughing iin front of Mr. Nendos before leaving.

On April 22, 3 more animal services employees came in the morning to serve Kiriakos Nendos with more summons 14 charges in all with a destruction order on all 5 dogs. The tall animal services employee of the three told Mr. Nendos to come out he has news about his dogs and he will only tell Mr. Nendos if he came out to get served. He told Mr. Nendos his puppy Rhea had puppies.

On June 3'rd when trial for the mischeif charge was set the police asked for an adjournment. Because again they stratigically placed charges on Mr. Nendos to keep the dogs incarcerated and seperated in case of a withdrawal. Having no credible reason for the charges, it should have been withdrawn. But the detective worked hard to legitimize the charges and  gathered last minute further information to charge Mr. Nendos with Animal Cruelty as well and have the date moved to the 22'nd of March 2017 so they can plan better.

From the 15'th when all 5 dogs were seized for 34 days until being served they were seized without reason. essentially kidnapped and disappeared. Kiriakos Nendos is not permitted to see them, nor is anyone else. When asked through email if they still live, Mrs. Glibbery responded by saying she will have to consult her legal team. Is it because they killed them with equal haste and need to legitimize their actions? Kiriakos Nendos is being run through the legal system, he is facing fines and criminal charges, he is spending thousands of dollars on lawyers, and 5 beautiful souls have been taken from him unlawfully/legally and all 5 are marked for death, if not dead all ready.They forbidden Mr. Nendos visitation, they have threatened him with trespassing should he attempt to visit, they refuse to answer any question especially if they are still alive or not after being held for 65 days as of this writing, And they are psychologically damaging the dogs by conditioning them to lose any hope of reunification or a life they knew. They intend to keep 8 year old Maisy and the 1 year old puppies caged until trial is over and they are proven innocent. Even if it should it be a 2 year affair with the courts, Maisy will be out at 10 and the puppies at 3 years of age. Animal cruelty by any measure as there are many alternatives available, like muzzles and house arrest etc. Rather than seperating them from family who loves them and desires their life. They are bliving souls with emotions that feel fear, pain and stress.

They want to use this theatrical production  to ban the Cane Corso in Ontario.

Please  join the fight to save our animals, and specifically Maisy and the puppies from Mrs. Glibbery. Animal services has cut all communication with me and this incident and the mayor's office stated it is not a matter they deal with. So the office supports this animal cruelty on Maisy and the 4 puppies.


Investigate Euthanasia of Docile Dog

Mrs. Glibbery and Toronto Animal Services are a municipal organization, who take extreme measures against citizens when they feel there has been an infraction upon their bi-laws. Their website does not inform anyone of the proceedures and steps taken against citizens and their dogs. They operate in secrecy and in the dark. For a public organization they should be transparent. They should have 24/7 cameras in all their shelters in all areas an animal is present. They should conduct their bahavioural tests in front of the eyes of the public. They should verify 100% their claims before killing defenceless animals. They should answer questions when asked by the public or especially a victim of their Obstruction of Justice. They should be equally bound to the Dog Liability Act of Ontario just as they re-enforce those by-laws on the citizens. They should be preserving life as best they can and not destroying it on a whim. Because it is not property like an inanimate refrigerator, but a living soul. And they should treat people and their animals AS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, AND NOT GUILTY UNTIL THE COURTS DEEM INNOCENCE. Mrs. Glibbery feels taking an animal(s) from their loving family's and caging them in isolation is not animal cruelty but acting in accordance to the laws. It is the worst of animal cruelty and creating and pushing for bi-laws does not make the psychological factor and the unknown secretive conditions these animals are living under while in their care, any less cruel. This organization for an animal is the most dangerous poistion to find itself in because they are completely at the mercy of people who disregard life completely. We need to change this and make them a transparent organization that answers to the citizens and not the other way around. Please friends let's make a change for the better in the City of Toronto. And please help save Maisy and her puppies from death. The problem is that against the citizens the laws are used as animal welfare, but once in the hands of the authorities the animals are treated as seized property, and they have no rights at all. And this in 2016 in a first nation country like Canada. These laws must change, animals are LIVING SOULS NOT PROPERTY.


The “Search & Seizure” of animals from a property in Ontario under the guise of :

    • the dog has on one or more occasions bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal;

    • the dog has on one or more occasions behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals;

    • an owner of the dog has on one or more occasions failed to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,

      (i) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or

      (ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals;

    • the dog is a restricted pit bull [explained in Ch.5: "Pit Bulls"] and an owner of the dog has on one or more occasions failed to comply with one or more of the requirements of this Act or the regulations respecting restricted pit bulls;

    • the dog is a pit bull other than a restricted pit bull [ie. a "banned" pit bull: see Ch.5];


    • there is reason to believe that the dog may cause harm to a person or domestic animal.

(biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) before any owner has been charged, tried and convicted, IS WRONG, on many levels!!! this is a HUGE injustice and breech of the Charter of Freedoms and Rights!

Search or Seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Two key issues in question: the violation of a citizen’s right to own property without fear of illegal search and seizure (Charter of Freedoms and Rights 8/9) and the issue of creating undue stress and trauma on animals through the process of a seizure (Animal Welfare).

Rather than “Search & Seizure” in every case of suspected animal violation (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) there needs to be another solution - “House arrest", asides from a simple muzzle or an e-collar or both. Authorities should NOT have the right to take all animals from any site until the court has made a decision and the accused is found guilty! Rather than as the present bi-laws have empowered leaving the animals defencelessly violated by the cruel conditionds, guilty until the accused is found innocent! The only exception might be animals found to be in serious threat of dying due to intentional abuse or neglect, should be removed from a property, with proper warrants. The process of “Search & Seizure” puts unnecessary strain on local authorities and agencies that are tasked to quickly remove, transport and care for a large volume of animals or species of animals that they are not prepared, experienced or qualified to handle. The process also places extreme and undue stress on animals that may or may not already be in a distressed state. This could harm animals that are not in poor health or further aggravate the condition of animals that may already be in poor health.

The process of “Search & Seizure” once animals have been removed from a property offers no incentive for the Crown Attorney to move quickly toward a verdict. Finally, the cost of having to board animals off the owner’s property for a long period of time can be prohibitive – resulting in a loss of animals through a forced monetary defeat. Resulting in the loss of animals and destruction upon the animals or the permanent rehoming of the animals, leaving the owner with huge mandatory boarding fees and possibly no animals to reclaim in the end, in the event that the owner has been found innocent of charges. In the end, once a court has made a verdict or a settlement has been agreed upon, the owner is left with no animals to reclaim and a huge legal bill that must be paid, regardless of the outcome. If the owner is found innocent the least the courts should do is just release the animals to the owner. The fees should then be the responsibility of Animal Services to charges that should never had been laid.

A “house arrest” order would allow an owner to continue to keep and care for his animals with the strict ruling that no animals shall leave the premises, without express written permission by the court, until the case has been tried and a verdict handed down. The accused would be allowed to continue to care for his animals on his property at his own expense, with his own labor. The accused would be charged only for the cost of monthly oversite and inspection by a qualified animal expert (a.k.a.: veterinarian) during the impoundment period. IF the animals’ health and safety is jeopardized under the owner’s care and there is an eminent threat of death occurring during the impoundment, the authorities would THEN have the right to seize only the animal(s) that is in jeopardy of dying - BUT only when a court (under the advisement of a licensed veterinarian) determines the need to do so. But this to is tricky and may get abused as the lack of exercise is damaging. IF the owner refuses to cooperate with the impoundment or the court’s oversight, the authorities may have just cause to seize all the animals, if a court determines the need to do so.

Perhaps, if authorities were forced to use “house arrest” rather than “Search & Seizure” (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs) there would be a greater incentive for the Crown Attorney to move quickly with the case! Because it can technically get dragged out for 2 years and the only ones suffering are the animals and owner. A "house arrest” would also allow the owner to record and prepare a defense without the authorities going in and removing and destroying all the evidence; which is what happens to the accused when his property has been raided and animals seized! In such cases. All of the owner’s evidence for defense is removed or ruined and all that is left is the authority’s claim of abuse and/or neglect. With “house arrest”, the burden of proof will no longer be on the defense but on the prosecution, as it should be. While the court case proceeds, the owner will be tasked to continue to care for his animals. The owner would also have the opportunity (but not forced) to make any improvements to his management system, with documentation from the overseers, especially where animal health and safety is an issue during the impoundment.

The argument of an owner’s licensure or dog at large claim, with an owner should also NOT be allowed as a reason for immediate “Search & Seizure”. Authorities should be required to follow the same principles of “house arrest” in those situations as well. Until the courts can determine guilt or innocence of any licensure crime, animals that are being kept in a suspected licensing violation should also be in “house arrest” unless there is evidence of an eminent risk of public safety or eminent death of an animal being improperly cared for by the owner. Those violations do not necessarily constitute abuse or neglect and should be handled separately from charges of abuse or neglect. However, proper warrants should ALWAYS be taken out BEFORE any “Search & Seizure” event takes place under those circumstances.

In the case where animals in shelters, that are without owners, there should be every effort made to offer the animal life and not a quick death. A meeting should be held for the public to respond to the issues arising in regards to each animal that is to be executed. The public meetings should be held every 30 days. This would allow the public to come to the defenseless animal's aid before being put to death, or destroyed known in legal terms. The legal term destroyed should be changed, it subconsciously softens the executions. We destroy inanimate objects, we execute life. If the word execute were used; execution order, or we executed the animal, or execution was performed, just the sound of that would create a whole different atmosphere where it's death would not be taken lightly. If every 30 days during their public meetings, Animal Services would bring the list of animals to be executed. The animals would be brought out to be seen and "tried" by the public. If Animal Services can verify 100% to public satisfaction the reason for execution, then they may be allowed to put the animal to death.This does mean performing their behavioural tests before the public. They should also allow banned breeds the opportunity for life to be relocated to an area in the entire world where it can be permitted to live for being what it is. And 100 % verification that the breed is what they claim it to be firstly. If in a case where someone steps forward to take an animal, it should be handed over without costs, except $20 a day from the date the animal is issued to be executed, until the public meeting where a public citizen claims it. Quick action and unchallenged excuses on defenseless animals should not be legally permitted and the laws must be changed with the welfare of the animal before the convenience of the authorities, under the guise of public safety, should come first.

Again - the raiding of personal property and the seizure of animals from that property, under the guise of (biting, behaviour, owner irresponsibility, breed, beliefs), before the owner has been charged, tried and convicted of a crime, IS WRONG!!!! It is a violation of an owner’s right to own "property" (a.k.a.: animals) without fear of illegal search and seizure and it creates undue stress and trauma on animals through the process and ordeal of a seizure. Animal "house arrest" can protect an Owner’s rights to “due process” in the court of law, while also protecting the Owner’s animals until a valid decision has been made. No animals should be taken from their owner and their home without a final GUILTY conviction. Search and seizure should only be enforced for the welfare of the animal and not through the judicial process. Also no animal in any way should be handled in regards to health by employee or vet without the concent of the owner, or to be secretly put down. The destruction of an animal should not be taken lightly, nor the mistreatment of creatures that do not understand the laws and it's process. The current laws must be reassessed and renewed with the welfare of the animal being top priority. The animals should have rights and not be treated like inanimate objects. Being placed in cages and held, living in confined quarters, living with their excrement, unknown how they are being treated or mistreated, unknown what they are being fed, unknown what injections they may have been subject too. But most importantly the psychological and physical deterioration of these animals under such conditions. They come from homes,and they have to endure an change that is no different than day and night. These are living breathing creatures that share the same emotions humans do; sadness, depression, anger, fear, hate. These conditions imposed on them would only bring out such emotions, as they are animals and think like animals. And their deaths. These are family members put to death for the most part, but even those that are not owned should have the God given right to life and breath. This lack of consideration to the animals by authorities can fall into a classification of animal cruelty, regardless if laws have made it legal to practice.





Sign Petition
Sign Petition
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.

Privacy Policy

By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.

Having problems signing this? Let us know.