Dozens of dogs rescued from Ontario home ‘covered’ in feces, owner won’t have to pay $100K in vet, boarding fees

(Source: iStock/Getty Images Plus)

Ontario’s Animal Care Review Board has ruled that a woman who allegedly kept 64 dogs in deplorable conditions inside her Hamilton home won’t have to pay the full $110,000 bill for their removal and care.

In a decision released by the tribunal on Tuesday, Alina Vernigorova was ordered to pay a reduced amount of $10,000 after the dogs were rescued from her home which the board said was “covered in layers of feces” last July.

Vernigorova had appealed the decision to pay the full $108,928 on the grounds that she is unemployed, carrying “significant unsecured” debt, facing mental health challenges, and is the sole caregiver to 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, said in a written decision.

‘Floors were soaked in urine’

Animal Welfare Servies Senior Investigator Tina Magliocco testified that she entered Vernigorova’s home on July 4, 2025, with a search warrant, a day after Hamilton police were called to the property over concerns of a dog “in distress” in the yard.

“Upon entering, the Appellant was located with feces on her legs and shoes,” the decision read.

Magliocco testified that the property’s “floors were soaked in urine” and that there were dogs located 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,” according to the tribunal documents.

Dr. Bruce Robertson, a veterinarian involved in the case, signed a veterinary certificate recommending the removal of all 58 dogs, some of which were pregnant at the time, to “relieve their distress.”

Animal Services returned to the address on July 10, based on evidence that additional animals were being kept in the home following the initial removal.

“During that attendance, an additional dog was discovered hidden behind a bathtub within a wall cavity and was removed,” the decision noted.

The dogs removed include 55 miniature poodles, one Maltese, one Shih Tsu, one German Shepherd, four poodles/Maltese puppies, and two miniature poodle puppies. Six additional puppies were born while in the care of animal services.

Tens of thousands of dollars spent on boarding, veterinary treatment was reasonable and necessary: adjudicator

The decision laid out exactly how much Animal Services was forced to spend to care for the seized animals, including $58,000 on boarding costs alone.

Other costs included $48,485 for veterinary treatment after the dogs showed evidence of internal and external parasites, malnourishment, severely matted coats, and dental issues.

Dr. Kyle Goldie, who is cited as an expert in veterinary medicine in the decision, testified that puppies and “intact” animals were housed together. Vernigorova acknowledged that her dogs were not spayed or neutered due to the cost but testified that she spent roughly $3,000 per month on “premium” dog food. Backstein noted that the “uncontrolled breeding” that was happening at the house was a “significant” contributor to the scale of expenses incurred by Animal Services.

Another $2,192 was spent on grooming due to the severe matting of the dogs’ hair once they were rescued.

Vernigorova didn’t dispute that Animal Services incurred costs in removing the dogs from her home but argued they were “unreasonable and unnecessary.” Backstein disagreed.

“I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the costs claimed in the SOA were reasonable and necessary but for the respondent’s conceded reduction of certain veterinary fees.”

Taxpayers to cover the $98K balance

In delivering her decision, Backstein said that she didn’t believe that reducing the amount of the bill or revoking it entirely was justified due to the fact that Vernigorova’s care for the animals was not “an isolated incident or an unforeseeable emergency.”

However, she also found that the sizeable debt was “not reasonably recoverable” given Vernigorova’s means.

“The situation developed over time and the appellant bore responsibility for allowing the number of dogs to escalate in circumstances that she could not manage,” she wrote. “A meaningful payment obligation is therefore required to reflect that responsibility and to avoid transferring the entire financial burden to the public.”

Hamilton police told CTV News Toronto that they received “multiple calls for service regarding animal welfare” at Vernigorova’s address, but no charges were ever laid.