Mom furious after rough altercation at Outremont wading pool

Lifeguards wanted her thrown out for refusing to put a top on her 3-year-old girl

Véronique Shapiro took a photo of her daughter following the incident.

An Outremont mother is furious after her she and her three-year-old girl were thrown out of a wading pool in the borough on Wednesday afternoon, because the youngster wasn't wearing a bathing suit top.

Véronique Shapiro was told by a lifeguard at the John F. Kennedy pool on Outremont Ave. to put a top on her child. She refused, and was then asked to leave. Shapiro refused to leave.

A confrontation ensued, during which Shapiro claims she was tackled to the ground as she was holding her child — contact which left the youngster with cuts to her forehead.

Shapiro claims one of the lifeguards had threatened to take her cellphone.

"After I refused to leave, I was tackled to the ground with my 3-year-old girl in my arms by a lifeguard I would easily mistake for the younger sister of Officer 728," Shapiro wrote on her Facebook page. "Naively, I thought lifeguards were there to save lives, and not to send children to hospital!!!"

Shapiro plans to file a complaint about the incident with Montreal police, while the borough has indicated it will file a complaint against Shapiro.

One of the lifeguards at the Kennedy pool says the rule exists so that children don't become the target of attention from pedophiles, something Shapiro says is ridiculous. Borough mayor Marie Cinq-Mars, for her part, says no rule exists requiring very young girl to cover up at a public pool.

The borough is investigating the incident.

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 44
  1. Drew posted on 08/28/2014 06:04 PM
    The life guard is right about pedophiles and there is a rule. They should have called the police instead of taking matters in their own hand
    1. D Gill posted on 08/29/2014 09:08 AM
      @Drew I don't understand the point of insisting the little 3 year old girl wear a top if 3 year old little boys don't. They are toddlers. How would this be more likely to attract a pedophile?
  2. chuck posted on 08/28/2014 06:14 PM
    The police should have been called right away. Lifeguards are not bouncers and should not have attacked this woman and her baby. The lifequard(s) involved should be fired and criminal charged laid for assault and battery.
  3. Lynda Birch posted on 08/28/2014 06:44 PM
    If the rule exists so that children don't become the target of pedophiles, then why doesn't the rule apply to boys as well?
    1. Dave posted on 09/01/2014 02:48 PM
      @Lynda Birch For the same reason that men don't wear bras.
      And spare us the ridiculous uber-feminism, svp.
  4. mom posted on 08/28/2014 07:02 PM
    A 3 year old to cover herself seriously???!!!!!!! They don't even have boobs at that age!!!!! And what difference would it make to a pedophil if she would have covered the top?!
    1. Marie posted on 08/29/2014 06:05 AM
      @mom Clearly you have no insight into the way a pedophile thinks if you dismiss this point so easily - do some research
  5. murray posted on 08/28/2014 07:27 PM
    OMG! How sick and stupid of the pool attendant.
  6. Richard posted on 08/28/2014 09:24 PM
    And she didn't want to put a top on her daughter because? I think some people leave the house everyday just looking to cause trouble
    1. markR posted on 08/29/2014 01:19 PM
      @Richard Just like some people walk with a chip on their shoulder like the life guard. If a rule did exist, the lifeguard should have simply called in the police. But some people like the life guard, metro cops, our montreal police lack oxygen to the brain and act as if they are judge, jury, and executioner.
    2. reality check posted on 08/29/2014 10:10 PM
      @Richard I think you need to get a grip, yes a mother always leaves home with a "3" year old looking to cause trouble. Are you serious? Guess most of you complaining don't have pictures of yourselves or your kids topless. I have movies of it being done at beaches years ago and it didn't attract any PEDOPHILES. you have a problem if you really believe no one would notice one hanging around a public pool to begin with. This is one of the most ridiculous situations I have seen in a long time. What next?? NO BABIES WITHOUT TOPS???????
  7. ric posted on 08/29/2014 06:29 AM
    If you don't like the rules, STAY OUT, you idiot.
  8. craig posted on 08/29/2014 01:40 PM
    I'm amazed to hear about how people are actually divided on this.

    "A lifeguard attacked a person at the pool."
    Attention: Idiotic lifeguard alert!!!!!!

    How are people against the mother here???
  9. Tony posted on 08/29/2014 03:57 PM
    If one is told by a Lifeguard that by rule a top is required at the pool, why did she not take this advice as is and not question it and refusing. She is definitely showing no respect for rules set out at the pool. She shouldn't off the top refuse it, without actual facts, such a display for not following rules, goes against the whole purposes of there being rules. Rules are out there for a purposes, such as safety and order. Even if the rules are coming out of the mouth of a youngster, they should be not be ignored.
    1. Michelle posted on 08/29/2014 09:07 PM
      @Tony First of all Tony, the Mayor stated there was no borough rule stating Girls over 2 have to wear a bathing suit top.-Apparently the lifeguards claimed that it was a borough the Fact is the lifeguards lied. Second of all, the lifeguards are not there to make up rules as they did here according to what the mayor has said and harass the taxpayers who are using the public pool they paid for, they are there to ensure their safety in the pool. Thirdly, not everyone is a sheep like you might be and blindly follow what some power tripping, public employee says. Just because they say something does not make it true or law. Public servants are just that...Servants to the public, not Gods. If it was an internal public pool policy, then it should have been on the board that posts the pool rules, I mean they have a rule clearly stating that one cannot pee in the pool posted, so why would they not post the rule stating that girls over 3 must wear a top? Especially considering the bodies Boys and girls at 3 look exactly the same above the waist. Its clear that the rules are posted at this swimming pool, they can clearly be seen if you go there. What's not posted as a rule is the one this lifeguard made up. They should be charged with criminal assault and sued. The only thing people understand is money, if this mother does not sue it will happen again to someone else. I hope she gets a great pay off!
  10. court de spaghat posted on 08/29/2014 11:10 PM
    "I was tackled to the ground with my 3-year-old girl in my arms by a lifeguard". Are you kidding me? Charge the lifeguard before she does it again.
  11. Kari posted on 08/30/2014 09:39 AM
    All this over a bathing suit top?
    The mother should have just covered her kid up and enjoyed the rest of the day.
    Who got hurt over this nonsense?
    The child.
    Another case of such bad judgement on the part of the parent no matter what the " rules " are.
  12. gusgoo13 posted on 09/02/2014 01:24 PM
    So, it's absolutely terrible that the child was hurt. I would hazard the woman's complete disregard for the shared public space and rules that go with it that perhaps she may have had something to do with the how the fall occurred. I would have a difficult time believing a lifeguard, just randomly tackling a woman holding a child. I would also hazard a lifeguard may or may not have the training to deal with a difficult conversation. Heck - I was trained on it year 5 of my career in a call center. Anyone have video or is it simply the woman's story - no corroborating evidence and we now hear the chant of "string them up" in the comments list? Like the Hampstead park ticket story? Only the woman who got the ticket spoke out and we all hate the cops now? Because I'm so happy to get a ticket and have neeeever blamed anyone else/excused my bad behavior by making the other person involved seem like a beast.
    All that to say who knows- maybe not be so quick to judge and both the lifeguards and mommy need to take a real look at how they behaved / helped aggravate the situation. After all, a child was hurt because of 2 adults. Not because of a poolside rule.
  13. Cranky posted on 09/05/2014 08:38 AM
    I guess they sneaked in some hand to hand combat training between CPR practices for lifeguards. When did they become an authority to touch anyone in any other way than saving their lives?
showing all comments

Share this article: