Ontario taxpayers hit with $98K care bill after 55 miniature poodles pulled from urine-soaked home
A Hamilton woman whose 58 dogs, including 55 miniature poodles, were seized last summer from her home that was “covered in layers of feces” with the floors “soaked in urine,” has seen her $108,928.64 bill for their care slashed to $10,000.
Alina Vernigorova, whose dogs were seized last July, appealed the massive bill for their care from the province’s chief animal welfare inspector to Ontario’s Animal Care Review Board. She was ordered to pay $10,000 to Ontario’s finance minister, leaving taxpayers to foot the rest of the bill.
“The appellant provided extensive testimony regarding her financial circumstances. She testified that she is unemployed, carries significant unsecured debt, arrears, and is solely responsible for the care of her autistic son. She also described her mental health challenges, including depression, and provided documentary support from her psychologist. I accept that the appellant is in significant financial distress and that payment of the (statement of account) would cause severe hardship,” Debra Backstein, vice-chair of the board, wrote in a recent decision.
Animal Welfare Service (AWS) Senior Investigator Tina Magliocco, testified that “multiple complaints regarding the welfare of a large number of dogs at” Vernigorova’s Stoney Creek home “raised concerns about unsanitary conditions, lack of adequate food and water, and the overall welfare of the dogs.”
The investigator tried to contact Vernigorova several times between May 22, 2025 and July 2, 2025 “without success,” said the Jan. 27 decision.
Magliocco entered the home on July 4, 2025, “with a search warrant, having been contacted by Hamilton Police Service on July 3, 2025, after police had been called to the home due to concerns of a dog in distress in the yard. The police removed one dog before contacting AWS with their concerns.”
The investigator found Vernigorova “with feces on her legs and shoes,” said the decision. “Magliocco testified that the dwelling was covered in layers of feces and the floors were soaked in urine. There were dogs throughout the house, some in crates, all living in unsanitary conditions without adequate food or water.”
Some “of the dogs had fleas and their fur was visibly matted with feces,” said the decision. “The air was tested and found to have very high ammonia levels.”
Veterinarian Dr. Bruce Robertson recommended removing all 58 dogs from Vernigorova’s home “to relieve their distress.”
After the large seizure, Magliocco testified, “there were concerns that additional animals were being kept” at Vernigorova’s home. She went back on July 10, 2025, and “an additional dog was discovered hidden behind a bathtub within a wall cavity and was removed.”
The $108,928.64 bill covered costs including transporting the dogs, boarding them and getting them veterinary services between July 3, 2025 and Aug. 12, 2025.
In addition to 55 Miniature Poodles, authorities also seized a Maltese, a Shih Tzu, and a German Shepherd from Vernigorova’s home.
Six puppies born after their pregnant mothers were seized from Vernigorova’s home were also in the care of the chief animal welfare inspector, said the decision.
Vernigorova “does not dispute that the (chief animal welfare inspector) incurred some costs. Rather, she argues that some of the costs were unreasonable or unnecessary and that the (statement of account) should be revoked due to her personal circumstances and inability to pay.”
Magliocco “explained that due to the sheer scale of the removal, the dogs were required to be transported to and housed at multiple facilities, and that transportation was necessary not only at the time of removal, but also to move the dogs between facilities for veterinary assessment, treatment, grooming, diagnostic testing and in some cases, whelping and post-natal care.”
Though she was satisfied that the bill was “reasonable and necessary,” Backstein said she “must also consider whether meaningful efforts were taken to mitigate financial hardship and to prevent the circumstances giving rise to the costs.”
Vernigorova “did not take steps to apply for the Ontario Disability Support Program or Ontario Works, despite testifying to longstanding mental health challenges that interfered with her ability to work,” Backstein said. “This is a relevant consideration when assessing whether she took steps to address her financial hardship.”
Before the dogs were removed, Vernigorova was spending $3,000 per month on premium dog food.
“At the same time, she acknowledged that the dogs were not spayed or neutered due to the cost,” Backstein said. “The evidence establishes that the uncontrolled breeding of the dogs was a significant contributor to the scale of the expenses incurred. The allocation of substantial funds to premium food rather than to spaying and neutering was a choice that materially increased the number of dogs needing care and therefore increased the costs incurred by the province when the dogs were removed.”
She cut the bill down to $10,000, noting anything lower “would, in my view, be nominal and would fail to reflect meaningful accountability. An amount materially higher would function as an unpayable debt.”
The lawyer representing the province’s chief animal welfare inspector did not respond before publication to a query Wednesday about what happened to the dogs.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.