K.A. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2026 CFSRB 65

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

K.A.
Applicant

-and-

Youthdale Treatment Centres
Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicators: Alexandra Barthos, Malcolm MacFarlane, Sonya Vellenga
Date: April 29, 2026
Citation: 2026 CFSRB 65
Indexed as: KA v Youthdale Treatment Centres (CYFSA s.171)

APPEARANCES

K.A., Applicant
Renatta Austin, Counsel

Youthdale Treatment Centres, Respondent
Mark Muccilli, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1On April 22, 2026, the Applicant (the “Child”) made an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) to review her April 21, 2026, emergency admission to the Acute Support Unit (the “ASU”) at Youthdale Treatment Centres (“Youthdale”). A hearing was held via videoconference on April 24, 2026 (the “Hearing”).

2The Child conceded that she had a mental disorder at the time of admission, the first statutory criterion for emergency admission to secure treatment articulated in section 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”) but denied that the remaining statutory criteria were met at the time of her admission.

3The Child’s mother (“Mother”) and Dr. Raisa Loureiro (“Dr. Loureiro”), a staff psychiatrist at Youthdale, testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Child did not testify, nor did her counsel call any evidence.

4For the following reasons, we ordered the Child remain at Youthdale as we were satisfied that all criteria under section 171(2) of the CYFSA had been met at the time of the Child’s admission.

BACKGROUND

5The Child is thirteen years old. The Child lives with her Mother, younger sibling (age 11), and grandmother.

6The immediate precipitating event (the “incident”) for the Child’s admission to Youthdale occurred on April 19, 2026. Around 3:00 or 4:00 am, the Mother entered her living room and encountered the Child. The Mother described a scene of intense self-harm.

7Later that same day, the Mother reported the incident to the police. The Child was taken to Michael Garron hospital in Toronto and was placed on a Form 1 application by a physician pursuant to section 15 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7 (the "MHA"), which allows the physician to order the subject of the application to undergo a psychiatric assessment and to detain that person in a psychiatric facility for a maximum of 72 hours.

8Before the incident, arrangements had been made to transfer the Child to Youthdale for an involuntary 30-day admission to the ASU commencing April 21, 2026, due to the Child's escalating self-harming behaviour. The Mother described having tried to place the Child in treatment at Youthdale for two years preceding the incident.

9The Child remained at Michael Garron Hospital from April 19, 2026, until she was transferred to Youthdale on April 21, 2026.

10The Youthdale Psychiatric Crisis Service Admission Summary (the “Admission Summary”) was completed by Dr. John Aoun and contains information regarding the Child’s past psychiatric and treatment history.

11The Admission Summary indicates that the Child is currently in Grade 8 but has not been in school since mid-March 2026.

12The Admission Summary specifies that the Child is at high risk for suicide, including suicidal ideation and multiple prior attempts, and has a complex trauma history caused by the Child’s father.

13The Admission Summary indicates that the Child identifies as a "comgirl", an online subculture where young women perform self-injury to secure male validation and group belonging. Her behaviours, i.e. carving initials, blood-writing, and documenting injuries, are not purely for emotional regulation but serve as a "social signal" to maintain intimacy within a toxic digital hierarchy.

ISSUE

14The issue to be determined is whether the Child’s admission to Youthdale met criteria (b) through (e) set out under Section 171(2) of the CYFSA as required by the CYFSA.

RESULT

15We find that criteria (b) through (e) in section 171(2) of the CYSFA were met at the time of the Child’s admission to Youthdale.

16On April 24, 2026, we denied the Child’s application for release pursuant to section 171(9) of the CYFSA.

ANALYSIS

17The determination of whether criteria (b) through (e) articulated in section 171(2) of the Act were met at the time of admission is made on a balance of probabilities. If any one of the criteria is not met at the time of admission, the CFSRB must order the release of the Child pursuant to section 171(13) of the CYFSA.

18Section 171(2) of the CYFSA states:

The administrator may admit a child to the secure treatment program on an application under subsection (1) for a period not to exceed thirty days where the administrator believes on reasonable grounds that,

a. the child has a mental disorder;

b. the child has, as a result of the mental disorder, caused, attempted to cause or by words or conduct made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to themself or another person;

c. the secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to themself or another person;

d. treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is available at the place of secure treatment to which the application relates; and

e. no less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances.

19The Child’s legal counsel conceded that criterion (a) was met at the time of admission, but she argued (b), (c), (d) and (e) were not.

20The Respondent submitted that all five criteria were met.

(b) Has the Child, as a result of the mental disorder, caused, attempted to cause or by words or conduct made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to themself or another person?

21The Admission Summary and all of the other Exhibits except for one were entered into evidence through the Mother during the Hearing without objection from the Child’s lawyer until closing arguments were presented to the Panel.

22One Exhibit was tendered through Dr. Loureiro: the Progress Notes prepared by Lorraine Martin, a Youthdale intake worker, covering the period from February 26, 2026, to April 20, 2026.

23The Admission Summary states that the Child suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Major Depressive Disorder, believed to be in remission, Social Anxiety Disorder, and Emerging Borderline Personality Disorder, for which she is prescribed Escitalopram, Trazodone, and Concerta.

24The Admission Summary and the Mother's Testimony both confirm that the Child's psychiatric history involved multiple occasions where she expressed suicidal ideation or took steps to end her life, including overdosing on over-the-counter medications as early as age 10 or 11.

25The Admission Summary indicates the Child began cutting herself at age 10 ½, in 2023, approximately. Around this time, the Child attempted to overdose on over-the-counter medications, prompted by systemic peer bullying and domestic instability.

26In October 2024, the Child took steps to hang herself, including obtaining a cord, but instead contacted a crisis line. Police attended the home, and the Child was taken to Centenary Hospital in Scarborough. The Mother testified that Centenary Hospital did not admit the Child for ongoing assessment.

27The Admission Summary states that, between the ages of 11 and 13 (approximately 2024–2026), the Child became deeply embedded in online “cult” communities, including the 764 group (the “764 Cult”). Although the Admission Summary refers to the Child’s involvement in more than one cult, the sole reference to the Child’s involvement with any additional cult is found in a report from Michael Garron Hospital dated April 20, 2026, prepared by Kerry‑Lynne Rheaume, Registered Nurse (the “PEZ Report”), which notes that the Child was also involved with the CVLT Cult. No evidence was led regarding the nature or extent of the Child’s involvement with the CVLT Cult, nor was any explanation provided as to what “CVLT” stands for.

28The Mother testified to the Child's involvement in the 764 Cult. The Mother indicates that the 764 Cult is an online extremist group that grooms children to record themselves engaging in violent or sexual activities, including suicide. The 764 Cult persuades the children to send them the violent or sexual materials, which are then used to exploit and extort the children. If a child refuses to participate, the 764 Cult engages in threatening and intimidating behaviour.

29The Mother indicates that the 764 Cult asked the Child to commit suicide. When the Child refused, the 764 Cult made a false report that the Mother “had guns on her children”. A police emergency response team, described by the Mother as SWAT, attended the home. This was when the Mother became aware and learned of the 764 Cult's involvement with the Child. The Mother testified that since the Child's involvement with the 764 Cult, the Child’s cutting became more extreme. The Mother indicated that the Child is at high risk for self-harm, trafficking, and sexual exploitation.

30The Mother testified that the 764 Cult initiated a second claim against her, but when the police were called, the subsequent investigation revealed the claim to be false. As a result, the attendance of the SWAT team at the residence was cancelled.

31The Mother testified that their family’s name and address are on a police priority list. The purpose of the list is to respond promptly to concerns that the Child is being trafficked.

32The Mother testified that the Child has tried to convince others to engage in self-harm by cutting. The Mother testified she is concerned that the Child’s behaviour includes efforts to persuade her younger sibling to participate in the same self-harming behaviour she engages in.

33The Mother testified that the Child threatens that she will beat her up. The Child also threatens to beat up her sibling.

34The Mother testified that she fears that the Child will start a fire at their home. The Mother testified that the Child deliberately removes pages from the Bible, writes on the pages with her blood, and then burns the pages. The burnt particles are then collected by the Child for what she has described to her Mother will be later use. The Child would not tell the Mother what the particles were to be used for. The Mother testified that she came across the Child burning a crucifix in the bathroom. When the Mother asked why the Child burned the crucifix, the Child is said to have answered “don’t worry about it" and "it’s not the first time I did it”.

35The Admission Summary confirms that since March 2026, the Child’s self-harming behaviours have escalated in frequency and transitioned from emotional release to masochistic arousal, including carving the Child’s boyfriend's initials into her groin and distributing images on Twitter featuring the Child writing in blood on her face and bedroom walls.

36The Mother testified that she is concerned for the safety of her younger child and elderly mother, who also live in the house.

37The Mother testified to an escalation in the Child’s behaviour in the week leading up to the incident. The Child hit the Mother's shoulder four times. The Child also chased her sibling around the house and pulled the sibling’s hair.

38The Mother testified that leading up to the incident, the Child was threatening to run away from home, stating that she would never be found. The Mother indicates she was not able to sleep in the two days leading up to the incident because of fear that the child would self-harm or run away from home.

39On April 19, 2026, the incident occurred. The mother walked into the living room and discovered a scene of intense self-harm. The Child had cut herself and was using her blood to paint the living room wall with satanic symbolism. The Mother testified that the Child’s blood was dripping down her thighs onto the floor. The Mother described it as being like a crime scene. The Mother also discovered 25 wet pills sticking together on the table, which she believed to be the result of the Child attempting suicide. The Mother fainted.

40The Mother spent about two hours cleaning up the blood so that the Child’s younger sibling and grandmother would not witness the scene. The Mother stated she confronted the Child over her belief that the Child was trying to commit suicide, but the Child disputed this.

41The Mother testified that leading up to the incident, the Child was cutting herself and drawing in her own blood every day. The Mother testified that she was aware the Child had cut herself on her abdomen, breasts, and chest, including code words associated with the 764 Cult. Two videos, which appeared to depict numerous fresh, bleeding cuts to the Child’s arms, as well as older scarring, and certain drawings in what appeared to be blood, were introduced into evidence as Exhibits. The Mother testified that the Child has been hospitalized frequently due to urinary tract infections, after using objects internally for pleasure and causing bleeding.

42In the opinion of the Panel, the Mother presented as a credible witness. The Panel gives considerable weight to her testimony in finding that there is a substantial risk that the Child will cause serious bodily harm to herself, and possibly to others.

43Regarding the causative link between the mental disorder and the substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to themself or another person, Dr. Loureiro gave evidence.

44She indicated that she was covering for Dr. Aoun, who had been involved in the Child’s admission to the ASU, but who was unavailable to testify. Dr. Loureiro reviewed the Child’s medical records, consulted with Dr. Aoun regarding the relevant clinical issues, and conducted an in‑person assessment of the Child prior to the hearing.

45Dr. Loureiro testified that Dr. Aoun believes, and the record indicates, that the Child has complex PTSD, ADHD, major depressive disorder, in remission, social anxiety symptoms, and emerging borderline personality traits.

46Dr. Loureiro’s testimony established a clear causal link between the Child’s mental disorder and the behaviours at issue. She testified that the Child’s mental disorder presents as a disorganized sense of self, leading to maladaptive behaviours, including self‑harm and inappropriately sexualized conduct. These behaviours are not isolated or situational; rather, they are symptomatic of an ongoing mental disorder that significantly impairs the Child’s interpersonal relationships and sense of what is appropriate. Dr. Loureiro’s testimony, together with the medical evidence, supports the conclusion that the Child’s mental disorder causes her to engage in conduct that poses a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and potentially to others.

47Dr. Lourerio testified that the Child’s behaviour was linked to the trauma and abuse she had experienced, explaining that trauma and abuse can impact a child’s developing brain by leading to a disorganized sense of self. She testified that the Child internalizes the traumatic experience or abuse, which manifests as self-harm behaviours.

48Dr. Loureiro testified that due to the disorganized sense of self, social interactions are also interpreted in a disorganized way, resulting in sexualized behaviour which is inappropriate to the Child’s age. The inappropriately sexualized content then carries on as part of the traumatic experience.

49Dr. Loureiro testified that the child’s mental health development was adversely affected by her history of witnessing physical abuse during childhood. She further stated that her involvement with the 764 Cult was pervasive and ongoing from early childhood through her early teenage years. Following the Child’s involvement with this organization, her behaviours worsened because self-harm is rewarded, internalized, and sexualized. Dr. Lourerio testified that the Child had factors that would predispose her to be involved in traumatic experiences later in future and that this was unfortunately common for PTSD victims.

50Dr. Lourerio testified that the Child’s behaviour was centrally linked to the Child’s mental health issues, stating, “this behaviour is central to the presentation”.

51The Panel accepts Dr. Loureiro’s evidence regarding the causative link between the Child’s mental health disorder and the substantial threat that the Child may cause serious bodily harm to herself.

52Relying on R. v. Ashi, ONSC 1326 (“Ashi”), the Child’s lawyer suggested that the Child’s behaviour should be viewed as a pleasure-seeking masochistic kink−a part of her sexual orientation−rather than causing serious bodily harm. Ashi involved a defence motion about jury instructions before the commencement of a criminal sexual assault trial.

53In Ashi, defence counsel argued that the law, as stated in R. v. Zhao, 2013 ONCA 293, must shift. Relying on the expert evidence of Dr. Kleinplatz in the Ashi case, the Court agreed that there is social utility in permitting people to define the parameters of consensual sexual activity for themselves and that the current restriction on the level of harm one can consent to in sexual activity does not align with what we now understand as the range of healthy sexual behaviour for many Canadians.

54The Court in Ashi also agreed that jury instructions in sexual assault cases involving the related areas of Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism or sometimes Slave and Master (collectively “BDSM”), must now adopt a higher threshold of "serious" or "significant" bodily harm, rather than the lower "bodily harm" standard previously applied.

55The Panel finds the facts in Ashi to be distinguishable. In Ashi, Dr. Kleinplatz specifically observed that BDSM should not include the infliction of harm. Harm or injury, Dr. Kleinplatz explained, is anything beyond superficial, trivial and transitory sensations. Markings (including bruising that could last several days or weeks) may occur, but they are not “harm” because they are transitory and trivial, do not cause disfigurement or disability, and will heal on their own without medical intervention.

56The reference in the Admission Summary to the Child carving her boyfriend's initials into her groin appears to be corroborated by the Pez Report. The PEZ Report indicates:

Police brought patient to care due to safety concerns. Police report numerous prior interactions related to affiliation with cult called 764. Cult known for grooming children into sexual coercion and encouraging members to cut themselves, share explicit videos and pictures, and degrade themselves by cutting names into bodies. Police state children receive instructions on what to say if brought to facility, including claiming they cut for sexual pleasure.

Mother contacted police department due to concerns about increased suicidal ideation, increased self-harm behaviors with increased cutting behaviors, patient becoming increasingly withdrawn, and severe self-harm behavior.

Patient states cuts herself as a kink and denies interest in stopping. Reports having boyfriend initially met online, then changed story stating met through mutual friend. When asked specifically about boyfriend encouraging self-harming behaviors, denies this and states he does not know about current difficulties.

… The patient showed writer her right thigh, which was almost completely covered in scars and wounds in various stages of healing. This was also observed on the patient's other thigh, and both lower legs as well.

…Writer asked the patient how and why she continues to be online, as it was their impression that they were not to be accessing the Internet due to their involvement in CVLT and 764. The patient reported that she has access to a variety of electronics in the home, she states "they are old laptops and phones that my mom thinks do not work". The patient denied being in contact with any of the cult members when writer asked her this directly, she reported not having any contact with them since they "swatted her house".

57It is the Panel’s view that cutting which results in scarring is more in line with disfigurement than a “superficial, trivial, and transitory sensation” as described in Ashi.

58The Child’s stated preferences must also be understood in the context of being groomed by the 764 Cult to participate in violent, sexualized, self-harming behaviour.

59Dr. Kleinplatz testified in Ashi that “consent” is a vital part of BDSM. A thirteen-year-old child is not capable of consenting to sexual activity, let alone sexual activity that causes serious or significant bodily harm, or exposes her to online exploitation.

60In this case, Dr. Lourerio testified that prior reports describe the Child as perceiving her self‑harming behaviour as empowering and as something she chooses to do, reflecting the internalization of repeated trauma. Dr. Lourerio cautioned that characterizing the Child’s self‑harming behaviour as merely a masochistic kink is problematic and fails to account for the harm the behaviour causes the Child.

61In closing submissions, as noted above in paragraph 21, the Child’s counsel requested that no weight be given to Dr. Loureiro’s evidence, and that the Admission Summary be excluded from the evidence, citing S.I. v. Youthdale Treatment Centres, 2010 CFSRB 30 (“S.I.”) and AH v Syl Apps Youth Centre, 2024 CFSRB 110 (“A.H.”) because Dr. Loureiro was not the admitting psychiatrist and did not author the Admission Summary.

62In S.I., the Child’s lawyer objected to the admission into evidence of an Admission Summary unless the psychiatrist who authored the document was present at the time. The Panel finds the facts of S.I. to be distinguishable. In this case, no objection was made to the Admission Summary being entered into evidence as an Exhibit through the Mother. The appropriate time to raise objections to the admissibility of evidence is when documents are referenced and relied upon, and not later in final submissions. We find that the Admission Summary is properly before the Panel.

63Similarly, the Panel is also satisfied that the facts here are distinguishable from those set out in A.H. In A.H. the mother’s testimony was often contradictory. Dr. Nathan Scharf, the only psychiatrist who testified in A.H., had not seen the Child at the time of admission and had only evaluated the Child on the date of the hearing. Dr. Scharf made his diagnosis by looking at the historical records only. None of the historical records had been placed into evidence, which prevented the Panel from assessing the appropriate weight to be given to these psychiatric records.

64In A.H., the Panel assigned less weight to the Psychiatrist's testimony as he did not evaluate the Child in person on the date of the admission. The absence of the Admission Summary or any information about the presenting symptoms or diagnosis at the time of the admission was problematic in A.H. because the Panel did not have sufficient contemporaneous evidence that that child had a mental disorder at the time of admission. However, here the Child’s counsel conceded she had a mental disorder at the time of her admission to Youthdale, the Mother testified in a clear and consistent manner, and the Panel was able to rely on the Admission Summary as well as the other documents entered into evidence as Exhibits.

65Pursuant to section 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 a tribunal may admit as evidence at a hearing, whether or not given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in a court, (a) any oral testimony; and (b) any document or other thing, relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and may act on such evidence, but the tribunal may exclude anything unduly repetitious.

66The Panel accepted the Admission Summary and the other Exhibits, finding them to be relevant and material to the issues under consideration. If the Child’s counsel wished to prevent the Admission Summary or other evidence from being entered as Exhibits without the admitting psychiatrist being present, it was incumbent upon her to mount an objection during the evidentiary portion of the Hearing, rather than argue for its exclusion in her closing submissions.

67It would have been of assistance to the Panel to have the admitting psychiatrist give oral evidence regarding the issues. However, as Dr. Lourerio is a staff psychiatrist who has read the Child’s file, met with the Child, and discussed the case with the admitting psychiatrist, we give her testimony some weight although she was not the admitting psychiatrist.

68The Panel accepts Dr. Lourerio’s testimony regarding the connection between the Child’s mental disorder and the Child’s risk of self-harm and inappropriately sexualized behaviour and finds that criterion (b) was met.

(c) Would the secure treatment program be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to themself or another person?

69Dr. Lourerio testified that ASU is a secure unit where the Child’s access to means for possible self-harm is greatly reduced. For example, the furniture and environment are made to restrict means of self-harm.

70Dr. Lourerio explained that youth usually enter ASU at a higher observation level to prevent self-harm. There’s a progression of reducing observation where the Child will be able to earn access to more areas of the facility, including the gym, roof, and kitchen. Later on in treatment, when there is evidence of stability, Youthdale will test the use of community passes and transition the young person out.

71Dr. Lourerio explained that Youthdale takes a trauma-informed approach to treatment.

72The Admission Summary references the possible use of physical or chemical restraints, or safety pods, when necessary. Dr. Lourerio testified that these measures would be considered only after sustained de‑escalation efforts by Youthdale had been attempted and proven ineffective.

73Based on Dr. Lourerio’s testimony, we find that the ASU would be effective in preventing the Child from causing harm to herself.

(d) Are appropriate treatments for the Child’s mental disorder available at the place of secure treatment to which the application relates?

74Dr. Lourerio testified to the ASU’s multidisciplinary approach.

75While in the ASU, the youths receive individual self-care, have regular meetings with a psychiatrist, engage in group therapy sessions, engage in daily programs with peers, participate in sessions with a behavioural therapist to evaluate and curb self-harm, and continue receiving their regular medication regimen, which may be adjusted as necessary.

76Dr. Loureiro testified that accommodation for the Child’s ADHD diagnosis is available in the ASU. She indicated the Child will be taught strategies for the management of ADHD symptoms, and that the Child’s pharmacological treatment for ADHD will also be reviewed and adjusted as needed.

77The ASU’s services are offered in parallel with the Child’s current supports. For example, the Child will continue counselling with her psychologist from the Lotus program at the Hospital for Sick Children, her psychiatrist Dr. Parveen, Victims Services, and support provided through the Catholic Children’s Aid Society.

78In terms of educational supports, teachers from the Toronto District School Board attend Youthdale daily. The youths receive an individualized education plan tailored to meet their needs.

79Dr. Loureiro testified that Youthdale utilizes Dialectical Behavioural Therapy, which is the most effective treatment for self-harm.

80The Panel finds that appropriate treatments for the Child’s mental disorder are available at the ASU.

(e) Would any less restrictive method of providing treatment for the child’s mental disorder be appropriate in the circumstances?

81Dr. Loureriro testified that the Child was already receiving intensive outpatient care, which did not provide enough safety in the community.

82Dr. Lourerio testified that, while an outpatient, the Child goes to the emergency room frequently and that these hospitalizations promote a period of stabilization. She explained that the longer a youth goes without engaging in self-harming behaviours, the easier it becomes to break the cycle and stop engaging in self-harm.

83The Mother testified that while some harm reduction was achieved via temporary hospitalizations, the harmful cutting behaviour resumed immediately upon the Child’s return home.

84The Mother testified that while in the community, the Child receives counselling support from Victim Services, attends therapy with a psychologist through the Lotus program at the Hospital for Sick Children, and has the support of Detective Constable Jessica from the police CARE team. The Child has a psychiatrist, Dr. Parveen, but has missed appointments due to her frequent hospitalizations.

85The Mother testified that less intrusive treatment methods have been unsuccessful in addressing the Child’s needs. She stated that the Child acts independently and has expressed an intention to continue engaging in self-harming behaviour

86Dr. Loureiro reviewed the Child’s previous contacts with Youthdale. Youthdale has a less intensive “Step Up Step Down” program. It’s an 8-week program offering similar services to those received at the ASU, but it is a voluntary program. Youthdale also offers a live-in treatment house with a few peers. Both the Step-Up Step Down program and the live-in treatment house were offered to the Child, but were rejected.

87Dr. Loureiro testified that the Child’s hospitalizations, during which the Child had no access to means of self-harm, resulted in extended periods of stabilization. Dr. Loureiro further indicated that facilitating a longer duration of intensive, closely supervised care could promote longer periods of stabilization going forward.

88Dr. Loureiro testified that the ASU ends up being less restrictive than when the Child is involuntarily admitted for hospitalization under the MHA because Youthdale can provide more holistic care with respect to the intensity of therapeutic interventions and take a more individualized approach.

89The Child’s mother has been trying to help the Child via less restrictive options for more than two years. The Child either did not attend or received only limited benefits from the support she received in the community. Those supports were not successful in reducing risk and stopping self-harm.

90Dr. Lourerio testified that, having regard to the hospital discharge summaries and the Child’s ongoing challenges in the community, the Child’s behaviour was escalating and changing.

91It is apparent to the Panel that voluntary outpatient treatment has not been sufficient to address the substantial, escalating, and shifting safety risks presented by the Child.

92The Panel finds that no less restrictive method of providing treatment for the Child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances.

CONCLUSION

93The Panel finds that all five criteria in subsection 171(2) of the Act were met at the time of the Child’s admission to Youthdale. Accordingly, on April 24, 2026, the Panel denied the application for the child’s release from the secure treatment program.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

94Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.

Malcome MacFarlane

__________________________________

Malcolm MacFarlane
Presiding Member

Alexandra Barthos

_________________________________

Alexandra Barthos
Member

Sonya Vellenga

__________________________________

Sonya Vellenga
Member