Ontario taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $100,000 for the rescue of 58 dogs from a Hamilton-area home this past summer.
The bill stems from an appeal heard at the Ontario Animal Care Review Board in November involving the province’s Animal Welfare Service (AWS) and the dogs’ owner.
The board decided on Jan. 27 the owner would have to pay $10,000 to the finance ministry after being billed $108,928.64 for the dogs’ removal and care.
In July, an AWS inspector obtained a search warrant and entered the woman’s home after receiving multiple complaints regarding the dogs’ welfare.
The day before the AWS’ inspector’s search, Hamilton police contacted them stating they had seized a dog from the property. When the inspector entered the home, the dogs’ owner was located with feces on her legs and shoes, the decision reads.
The home was also 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,” the order states.
The investigator found some of the dogs had fleas, and their fur was visibly matted with feces. The air was also tested and was found to have high ammonia levels.
After an order was signed to remove the 58 dogs, some of which were pregnant, AWS returned to the home under suspicion more animals were remaining. On July 10, investigators rescued a dog they found hidden within a wall cavity behind a bathtub.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
After their rescue, the animals remained in care until mid-August, the decision stated.
AWS told the review board the costs incurred were reasonable given the “sheer scale” of the removal. It sought to have the bill changed to $101,771.64 after advising $7,157 in veterinary fees would be “inappropriate” to pass on to the dogs’ owner.
“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,” the decision reads.
However, the dogs’ owner — who filed the appeal — told the review board she was unemployed, carried significant unsecured debt, arrears and was 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.
“The Appellant testified that, prior to the removals, she spent approximately $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. The evidence establishes that the uncontrolled breeding of the dogs was a significant contributor to the scale of the expenses incurred,” the decision reads.
“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.”
Under section 38 of the PAWS (Provincial Animal Welfare Services) Act, the review board has the discretion to confirm, revoke or vary a Statement of Account (SOA) and may consider an 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 decision reads.
Vice-chair Debra Backstein eventually decided on billing $10,000 to the dogs’ owner, writing anything higher would be an “unpayable debt.”
“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 that she could pay a six-figure amount,” Backstein wrote.
“An amount materially lower than $10,000 would, in my view, be nominal and would fail to reflect meaningful accountability. … The amount ordered represents a significant reduction from the original SOA, while still constituting a real payment obligation.”
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
