A woman from Hamilton, who had about 60 dogs removed from her residence by the province last summer, has been directed by a tribunal to pay only a fraction of the $101,000 incurred for their care. The Ontario Animal Care Review Board reached this decision last week following an appeal by Alina Vernigorova against the six-figure expenses.
Adjudicator Debra Backstein mandated her to pay a reduced sum of $10,000, taking into account the significant public resources utilized and Vernigorova’s limited financial means, among other factors. The intervention occurred in July after complaints were lodged by concerned neighbors and Hamilton police, prompting animal welfare investigators to visit Vernigorova’s Stoney Creek home.
Upon inspection, authorities discovered 58 additional dogs inside the house, predominantly miniature poodles, after one dog had already been taken away by the police. The living conditions were deplorable with the dwelling coated in feces, urine-soaked floors, and dogs scattered throughout the unsanitary premises without proper sustenance or hydration.
The dogs, which included breeds like Maltese, Shih Tzu, and German shepherd, exhibited signs of distress, with some suffering from flea infestations and tangled fur saturated with fecal matter. Several dogs were pregnant, underscoring the dire situation. Despite Vernigorova’s silence on the matter, the tribunal’s findings shed light on the grim reality of the situation.
Authorities removed the dogs from the property, but a subsequent search was conducted out of concern for more animals. Shockingly, another dog was found concealed behind a bathtub within a wall cavity and was promptly rescued. The province bore the expenses of transporting the dogs to various facilities, covering daily care, veterinary services, and grooming to alleviate the animals’ suffering.
The total costs incurred, exceeding $108,000, were deemed justifiable and vital by the board, leading to a reduction of Vernigorova’s bill to $101,000. Despite her appeal and testimony citing financial hardships, including unemployment, significant debts, and caring for her son with special needs, the adjudicator settled on a revised payment of $10,000 to ensure accountability without burdening Vernigorova with an insurmountable debt.
The decision highlighted the gravity of the situation and emphasized the importance of responsible pet ownership to prevent such incidents in the future. The Ministry of the Solicitor General declined to comment on the matter when approached for a response.