Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Date: 2026-01-27

Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.

Between:

Alina Vernigorova Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Debra Backstein, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Alina Vernigorova, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Canaan Dalton, Student-at-Law Jessica Holroyd, Counsel

Interpreter: Iryna Shymaska, Ventix Interpretation and Rufat Aperov

Heard by videoconference: November 25 and 26, 2025

INTRODUCTION

1Alina Vernigorova, the Appellant, appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) to the Animal Care Review Board (ACRB). The SOA was issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) to the Animal Care Review Board (Board) pursuant to s.35 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 c. 13 (PAWS Act).

2The SOA, dated August 12, 2025, required the Appellant to pay $108,928.64 for costs incurred by the Respondent between July 3, 2025 and August 12, 2025 for care of dogs that were removed from the Appellant’s residence between July 3, 2025 and July 10, 2025. The SOA identifies four categories of costs related to transportation, boarding, veterinary services, and other animal care expenses incurred while in the Respondent’s care for:

1. 55 Miniature Poodles;
2. 1 Maltese;
3. 1 Shih Tzu;
4. 1 German Shepherd;
5. 4 Poodles/Maltese puppies; and
6. 2 Miniature Poodle puppies.

3The six puppies were born while in the care of the Respondent.

4The Appellant appealed the SOA to the Board on August 19, 2025, and sought to have it revoked or varied. The Appellant does not dispute that the Respondent incurred some costs. Rather, she argues that some of the costs were unreasonable or unnecessary and that the SOA should be revoked due to her personal circumstances and inability to pay.

5At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent advised that they would not seek recovery of $7,157.00 in veterinary fees that had been identified as inappropriate to pass on to the Appellant. As such, the Respondent seeks to have the SOA varied to $101,771.64. The Respondent submits that the remainder of the costs reflected in the SOA were both incurred and reasonable.

ISSUE

6Should the SOA dated August 12, 2025, be confirmed, varied or revoked?

RESULT

7The SOA is varied, and the Appellant is ordered to pay $10,000.00 to the Minister of Finance.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND BURDEN OF PROOF ANALYSIS

8Section 35(1) of the PAWS Act provides that an owner or custodian of an animal is responsible for costs incurred by the Respondent in cases where an inspector has taken steps to relieve an animal’s distress, removed an animal, or kept an animal in care. Section 35(2) of the PAWS Act lists various costs that are recoverable by the Respondent, including transportation, veterinary services, boarding and other reasonable animal care cost expenses.

9In Windrift Adventures Inc. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 4501 (Div. Ct.) (Windrift), the Divisional Court established an analytical framework for SOA appeals. The Respondent bears an initial evidentiary burden to establish that the costs were actually incurred and were reasonable. Once this burden is met, the Appellant must then demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the SOA should be revoked or varied.

BACKGROUND AND REMOVALS

10Animal Welfare Service (AWS) Senior Investigator Tina Magliocco, testified on behalf of the Respondent about her involvement in the file. She stated that AWS had received multiple complaints regarding the welfare of a large number of dogs at the Appellant’s residence. The complaints raised concerns about unsanitary conditions, lack of adequate food and water, and the overall welfare of the dogs.

11Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that AWS made several attempts to contact the Appellant between May 22, 2025 and July 2, 2025 without success.

12Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that on July 4, 2025, she entered the Appellant’s residence 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.

13Upon entering, the Appellant was located with feces on her legs and shoes. Senior Investigator 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. Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that 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.

14Dr. Bruce Robertson, veterinarian, signed a veterinary certificate recommending removal of all 58 dogs to relieve their distress. Senior Investigator Magliocco then issued a Notice of Removal on July 4, 2025 under s. 31(1)(a) of the PAWS Act, removing the dogs from the Appellant’s care to relieve their distress, citing “poor living conditions, no food or clean water visible.” Each dog was individually identified and crated for transport.

15Further evidence was provided by Senior Investigator Magliocco that there were concerns that additional animals were being kept at the Appellant’s residence following removal, so AWS re-attended on July 10, 2025 under a further warrant. During that attendance, an additional dog was discovered hidden behind a bathtub within a wall cavity and was removed.

16Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that upon removal, all the dogs appeared to be in various levels of distress.

THE COSTS WERE INCURRED

17In accordance with the framework as set out in Windrift, the Respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden of establishing that the costs claimed in the SOA were actually incurred. The Respondent presented detailed contemporaneous invoices, boarding records, veterinary records, animal care documentation, and witness testimony and statements to demonstrate that the costs were incurred during the period of time the dogs were in the Respondent’s care.

18For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent demonstrated that the SOA reflected actual costs incurred in caring for the dogs.

Transportation

19Senior Investigator Magliocco testified regarding the removal of the dogs from the Appellant’s residence over multiple attendances between July 3, 2025 and July 10, 2025. She 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.

20The invoices provided by the Respondent reflect charges totaling $212.98. The Appellant led no evidence disputing this. Based on the invoices and the testimony of Senior Investigator Magliocco, I am satisfied that the transportation costs as set out in the SOA were incurred.

Boarding

21Boarding costs form the largest category of expenses in the SOA and total $58,037.66, which reflect the daily care of the dogs while in the Respondent’s custody.

22Senior Investigator Magliocco provided detailed evidence regarding the boarding arrangements, explaining that boarding encompassed more than simple housing. Boarding included the basics such as food, water, and shelter, but also daily monitoring, cleaning, enrichment, and supervision, as well as compliance with disease control and prevention protocols required in kennel-type environments. She explained that given the large number of animals, as well as their condition at intake, monitoring and ongoing care were required.

23Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that because of the large scale of the removal, the dogs had to be boarded at multiple facilities, including Animal Care Centre Lobo and the Greater Niagara Humane Society. Each facility charged per-diem boarding rates that reflected daily care services.

24I note that the boarding records identify dogs by crate number/identifier and record the number of days each animal remained in care. The invoices reflect boarding over multiple weeks, consistent with the evidence that the animals remained in care from early July 2025 to mid-August 2025.

25Senior Investigator Magliocco further testified that puppies born in care required continued boarding, as did their mothers, which increased the duration and scope of the boarding services required.

26No evidence was led by the Appellant to dispute that the costs were incurred. The Appellant did not lead any evidence to suggest that lower cost boarding was available or appropriate.

27Based on the boarding invoices, intake records and the evidence of Senior Investigator Magliocco regarding the housing and daily care of the animals, I accept that the boarding costs as set out in the SOA were incurred.

Veterinary Costs

28The Respondent relied on veterinary invoices and medical records together with the evidence of Dr. Kyle Goldie, qualified as an expert in veterinary medicine, to establish that veterinary costs claimed in the SOA totaling $48,485.80, were incurred while the animals were in the Respondent’s custody.

29Dr. Goldie testified that he reviewed the dogs’ veterinary records as well as the invoices of multiple clinics including Hamilton Region Emergency Veterinary Clinic, Animal Care Centre Lobo and the Greater Niagara Humane Society. He also reviewed diagnostic testing records. He confirmed that the veterinary invoices and records correspond to the period following the removal of the dogs from the Appellant’s residence.

30Dr. Goldie testified that from a veterinary perspective the records raised concerns about unsanitary living conditions, evidence of internal parasites including Giardia and Coccidia, external parasites (fleas), thin body condition, severely matted coats, pregnant dogs, puppies and intact animals housed together, dental issues including retained deciduous teeth in puppies as well as musculoskeletal concerns.

31Dr. Goldie tied these observations to the documented intake examinations, diagnostic testing, vaccinations, parasite treatment, pregnancy checks, dental procedures as well as whelping and post-birth care for puppies born in the Respondent’s custody.

32Based on the veterinary invoices, medical and dental records as well as the evidence of Dr. Goldie, I accept that the veterinary costs as set out in the SOA were incurred.

Other Animal Care Costs

33The SOA includes $2,192.20 in costs for other animal care. Senior Investigator Magliocco confirmed that these costs related to grooming for the dogs that were severely matted at the time of removal. They needed grooming to alleviate their distress.

34Based upon this evidence and the invoices provided, I am satisfied that the costs set out in the SOA were incurred.

Attribution of Incurred Costs to the Appellant’s Dogs

35During cross-examination, the Appellant questioned how the Respondent could be certain that the costs incurred in the SOA related to the dogs removed from her property as opposed to dogs removed from another location.

36The Respondent addressed the issue through the evidence of Regional Supervisor Brandon James, who testified regarding AWS procedures for tracking animals in large-scale removals. He explained that in removals involving many animals, each animal is assigned identifying information at the time of the removal, including numerical identifiers, which then follow the animal throughout boarding, veterinary treatment, and all other care received while in the Respondent’s custody.

37The documentary evidence provided by the Respondent is consistent with Regional Supervisor James’ testimony as the invoices identify animals by crate number, intake number or group identifier associated with the removal from the Appellant’s residence.

38While the Appellant speculated that some services on the SOA may have been provided to dogs that were not hers, she had no evidence to suggest that this was in fact the case. She did not identify any incurred charge that could not reasonably be linked to the dogs removed from her property.

39Having reviewed the documentary evidence and having accepted Regional Supervisor James’ testimony, I am satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the costs incurred and reflected in the SOA related to the dogs removed from the Appellant’s property.

THE COSTS WERE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY

40In accordance with the Windrift framework, once the Respondent establishes that costs reflected in the SOA were incurred, it must also establish that these costs were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. Reasonableness is assessed having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the services provided, the needs of the animals, the scale of the removal, and the Respondent’s statutory obligation to relieve the animals’ distress and ensure proper care.

41Based on the documentary evidence provided as well as the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses, 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.

Transportation

42I am satisfied that the transportation costs incurred were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances given that this was a large-scale removal of many dogs over three attendances at the Appellant’s residence.

43The evidence of Senior Investigator Magliocco was that transportation was required not only to remove the animals from the Appellant’s residence but also to move the dogs between facilities and veterinary clinics as specific needs arose.

44I find that the transportation costs are modest and there is nothing to indicate that the transportation costs were unnecessary or unreasonable.

Boarding Costs

45Once the dogs were removed from the Appellant’s residence, it became the obligation of the Respondent to ensure that each animal received the appropriate boarding accommodations and care while in boarding. This included food, water, sanitation, monitoring, and enrichment.

46The Respondent provided invoices that showed that adult dogs were boarded at a rate of $45.00 per day and puppies were boarded at a rate of $20.00 per day. Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that, in her experience as an investigator involved in numerous removals, these rates are standard and according to industry practice and reflect the reduced space and care requirements for puppies as opposed to adult dogs.

47I assess the boarding costs with the knowledge of the conditions that the dogs were living in prior to their removal. The residence was described as having floors covered in feces and urine, without adequate food or water available. Placement of the dogs in appropriate boarding facilities for their needs was necessary and reasonable to address the dogs’ varying conditions of distress.

48In light of the number of animals removed, the duration of care, the rates charged and the evidence regarding the dogs’ various conditions at removal, I am satisfied that the boarding charges reflected on the SOA were reasonable and necessary.

Veterinary Costs

49In assessing the reasonableness of the veterinary services provided, I considered the detailed veterinary invoices as well as the evidence of Dr. Kyle Goldie, an expert in veterinary medicine. His evidence, both orally and in his expert report, was detailed and thorough, as he provided his opinion on the reasonableness of the various costs on the SOA.

50Dr. Goldie testified as to the importance of intake examinations in order to identify parasites, injuries, illnesses, body condition, dental and musculoskeletal issues, and pregnancy status.

51With respect to the costs of preventative treatment incurred, Dr. Goldie explained that parasites, including Giardia, are transmitted through feces and that dogs that are housed together significantly increase the risk of transmission between the animals. As a result, preventative treatment was required during boarding to prevent ongoing distress and spread of disease. If these conditions are left untreated, they can cause gastrointestinal illness, dehydration, weight loss, and ongoing distress.

52Dr. Goldie also testified regarding vaccination protocols in kennel environments explaining that animals must be brought up to date on core vaccines, including rabies, DA2P, and Bordetella in order to prevent disease outbreaks. Dr. Goldie acknowledged that some of the dogs that came into care may have been previously vaccinated, however, given that these vaccinations were not documented, it was reasonable and medically appropriate to vaccinate all dogs upon intake.

53The evidence also established that multiple dogs were pregnant at the time of the removal, which indicated that pregnancy checks on the female dogs was reasonable to determine appropriate medication and nutrition and to prepare for delivery of puppies. Post-natal monitoring was also considered reasonable for mothers and puppies to ensure survival and welfare.

54Dr. Goldie testified that he compared the veterinary costs charged in this case to the 2025 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Fee Guide, which is an annual publication of suggested fees for veterinary services in Ontario.

55I accepted Dr. Goldie’s evidence that the costs charged were in line with the suggested fees for the services provided

56On cross-examination, the Appellant questioned Dr. Goldie regarding the reasonableness and necessity of certain veterinary services including dental procedures. Dr. Goldie explained that the procedures performed were necessary and reasonable, since untreated dental issues can result in pain and long-term health consequences. He also explained that dealing with dental issues when the dogs were already anesthetized for other necessary medical procedures was reasonable and appropriate and would avoid the need for further anesthesia costs down the road.

57The cross examination of Dr. Goldie did not elicit any contradictory testimony. His explanations were clear, consistent and aligned with the veterinary records and invoices. I therefore accept Dr. Goldie’s evidence regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the veterinary services provided.

Other Animal Care Costs

58Senior Investigator Magliocco testified that many of the dogs were severely matted at the time of removal with feces and urine embedded in their fur, mats pulling against the skin, overgrown and curled nails, and restricted movement. The severity of these conditions was visible in photos provided in the Respondent’s evidence.

59Dr. Goldie also confirmed that severe matting is not a cosmetic issue and is in fact necessary to relieve distress. He explained that from a veterinary perspective, mats cause pain, interfere with thermoregulation, increase the risk of infection, and constitute distress. In some cases, matting caused so much distress for some of the Appellant’s dogs that dematting could not be performed safely without sedation.

60I am therefore satisfied that the other animal care costs including grooming and dematting costs were reasonable and necessary to address the dogs’ conditions following removal.

DISCRETION TO VARY THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

61Having found that the Respondent discharged its onus under the first stage of the Windrift framework, the analysis then turns to the second stage of the Windrift framework where the burden shifts to the Appellant to address the question on appeal and demonstrate why the SOA should be varied or revoked.

62Under s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, the Board has the discretion to confirm, revoke or vary an SOA and may consider the Appellant’s ability to pay. The question at this stage is whether requiring payment of the full amount would be proportionate and consistent with the purpose of the PAWS Act, having regards to the Appellant’s circumstances. The Divisional Court in Ishankova v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONSC 1231(Div. Ct.) (Ishankova), confirmed that ability to pay is a relevant factor in the Board’s discretionary analysis, provided that it is weighed in a manner consistent with the PAWS Act’s purpose of owner accountability and avoiding routine cost-shifting to the public.

63The 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 SOA would cause severe hardship.

64Following Ishankova, the Board must also consider whether meaningful efforts were taken to mitigate financial hardship and to prevent the circumstances giving rise to the costs. The evidence established that the Appellant 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. This is a relevant consideration when assessing whether she took steps to address her financial hardship.

65In addition, the Appellant testified that, prior to the removals, she spent approximately $3,000.00 per month on premium dog food. At the same time, she acknowledged that the dogs were not spayed or neutered due to the cost. 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 that 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.

66Opportunities therefor existed to mitigate the financial consequences, including spaying and neutering, seeking assistance programs or rehoming the dogs, but that she did not take advantage of any of these opportunities.

67In prior cases involving large numbers of animals and dire financial circumstances, the Board has exercised its discretion to order a substantial reduction in the SOA while still requiring meaningful accountability (Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2022 ONACRB 12).

68In the circumstances, a variance of the SOA to $101,771.64, would not meaningfully advance the objective of owner accountability, but instead would result in a debt that is not reasonably recoverable given the Appellant’s means.

69At the same time, I do not accept that the SOA should be reduced to a nominal amount or revoked entirely. This was not an isolated incident or an unforeseeable emergency involving a small number of animals. 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. A meaningful payment obligation is therefore required to reflect that responsibility and to avoid transferring the entire financial burden to the public.

70The Board must identify an amount that meaningfully reflects accountability for the circumstances giving rise to the SOA, while also recognizing the Appellant’s severe financial hardship.

71I therefore arrive at varying the SOA to $10,000.00. I have taken into account the scale of the costs incurred, the Appellant’s responsibility for allowing the situation to escalate and the significant public resources expended in caring for the dogs. At the same time, I have given substantial weight to the Appellant’s limited financial resources, ongoing caregiving responsibilities, mental health challenges and the absence of any realistic prospect tat she could pay a six-figure amount.

72An amount materially lower than $10,000.00 would, in my view, be nominal and would fail to reflect meaningful accountability. An amount materially higher would function as an unpayable debt rather than a principled exercise of the discretion under s.38 of the PAWS Act. The amount ordered represents a significant reduction from the original SOA, while still constituting a real payment obligation.

ORDER

73Pursuant to s. 38(9)3.1 of the PAWS Act, the Board varies the SOA and orders the Appellant to pay $10,000.00 to the Minister of Finance.