Ontario’s Animal Care Review Board has determined that a woman accused of keeping 64 dogs in horrible conditions inside her Hamilton home won’t have to pay the full $110,000 bill for their removal and care.
In a ruling released by the tribunal on Tuesday, Alina Vernigorova was instructed to pay a reduced amount of $10,000 after the dogs were rescued from her home, which the board described as “covered in layers of feces” last July.
Vernigorova had appealed the decision to cover the full $108,928 arguing that she is unemployed, burdened with “significant unsecured” debt, facing mental health issues, and is the primary caregiver for her son who has autism.
“I accept that the Appellant is in significant financial distress and that payment of the Statement of Account (SOA) would cause severe hardship,” Debra Backstein, vice chair of the board, stated in a written decision.
‘Floors were soaked in urine’
Animal Welfare Services Senior Investigator Tina Magliocco testified that she entered Vernigorova’s home on July 4, 2025 with a search warrant after Hamilton police were called to the property over concerns about a dog “in distress” in the yard. “Upon entering, the Appellant was located with feces on her legs and shoes,” according to the decision. Magliocco reported that “floors were soaked in urine” and found dogs throughout the house all living in “unsanitary conditions without adequate food or water.” “…Some of the dogs had fleas and their fur was visibly matted with feces. The air was tested and found to have very high ammonia levels,” as noted in tribunal documents. Dr. Bruce Robertson, a veterinarian involved in this case, signed a veterinary certificate recommending removing all 58 dogs, some of which were pregnant at that time, to “relieve their distress.” Animal Services returned to the address on July 10 based on evidence indicating more animals were being kept there after initial removal. “During that attendance, an additional dog was discovered hidden behind a bathtub within a wall cavity and was removed,” as mentioned in the decision. The dogs taken included 55 miniature poodles, one Maltese, one Shih Tzu, one German Shepherd, four poodles/Maltese puppies, and two miniature poodle puppies. Six more puppies were born while they were under animal services’ care.Costs for boarding and veterinary care deemed necessary: adjudicator
The ruling detailed how much Animal Services spent caring for these seized animals-$58,000 just for boarding costs alone. Additional expenses included $48,485 for veterinary treatment due to signs of internal and external parasites along with malnourishment and dental problems. Dr. Kyle Goldie is cited as an expert witness regarding veterinary medicine; he testified that puppies and “intact” animals were housed together. Vernigorova admitted her dogs weren’t spayed or neutered because it was too costly but claimed she spent about $3,000 monthly on “premium” dog food. Backstein remarked that uncontrolled breeding significantly contributed to Animal Services’ total expenses incurred here. Another $2,192 went towards grooming because of severe matting once they were rescued from neglectful conditions. Vernigorova didn’t contest Animal Services’ costs related to removing her dogs but argued they weren’t “reasonable or necessary.” Backstein disagreed with this perspective. “I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that costs claimed in SOA were reasonable and necessary except for certain veterinary fees agreed upon by respondent,” said Backstein.$98K balance will be covered by taxpayers
When delivering her conclusion Backstein indicated she felt reducing or completely waiving this bill wasn’t warranted since Vernigorova’s treatment toward these animals wasn’t merely “an isolated incident or an unforeseeable emergency.” However; she recognized this substantial debt wasn’t something recoverable given Vernigorova’s circumstances either.“The situation developed over time; thus it fell upon appellant responsibility allowing numbers grow beyond what she could manage,” wrote backstain. “Meaningful payment obligation required reflects responsibility avoiding transferring entire financial burden public.”
Hamilton police informed Toronto received multiple calls concerning animal welfare at Vernigorova’s residence but no charges came forth afterward.
Source link
