CUSTODY REVIEW BOARD
This case relates to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c.1 (“YCJA”). Under sections 110(1) and 129 of the YCJA, no one is allowed to make public any information that would identify a youth who is in detention or custody. Also, no one is allowed to share the information contained in this document with anyone unless the YCJA says it can be shared. In addition, the proceedings of the Custody Review Board (“CRB”) are private. Therefore, all identifying information in this decision has been removed.
No one can show the unredacted decision to anyone else (except the Applicant’s lawyer or others named in the YCJA) or make it public by putting it “online” or giving it to the media. There may be legal consequences if this information is shared contrary to the YCJA in accordance with s.138(1) of the YCJA.
BETWEEN:
Young Person Applicant
-and-
Provincial Director Respondent
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro Date: January 29, 2026 Citation: 2026 ONCRB 11 Indexed as: Young Person v Provincial Director (CYFSA s.152)
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application with the Custody Review Board (“CRB”) for a review of the Applicant’s placement under subsections 152(1)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“CYFSA”). The Applicant seeks a review of the Provincial Director’s decision to place her at [FACILITY 1], a secure detention facility in [city 1]. The Applicant seeks a transfer to the [FACILITY 2], a secure detention facility in [city 2].
2In conducting this review, I spoke to:
- the Applicant;
- [father], the Applicant’s Father (“Applicant’s Father”)
- JW, the Manager at [FACILITY 2] (“[FACILITY 2] Manager”)
- DM, the Custody Service Manager at [FACILITY 1] (“[FACILITY 1] Manager”)
- JP, the Applicant’s Probation Officer (“Probation Officer”)
3In addition, I reviewed the following documents:
- Level of Detention Assessment Form dated [date];
- Young Person’s Case Management/Reintegration Plan dated [date];
- Warrant Remanding a Prisoner dated [date]; and,
- Warrant Remanding a Young Person dated [date].
ISSUE
4Is the Applicant’s placement at [FACILITY 1], a secure detention facility, appropriate to meet her needs?
RESULT
5The Applicant’s placement at [FACILITY 1] is appropriate to meet her needs. I confirm the Provincial Director’s decision to place the Applicant at [FACILITY 1].
ANALYSIS
6The Applicant is [age] years old. She has been charged with various criminal offences, both as a youth and an adult, including assaulting a peace officer, carrying concealed weapon, and failure to comply with undertaking and probation. The Applicant’s charges are still outstanding. Before being placed at [FACILITY 1] on [date], the Applicant was detained at [city 3] District Jail. She was arrested after she was released into the community from [FACILITY 2]. The Applicant is originally from [city 4], where her father continues to reside. She feels that [FACILITY 1] is not appropriate to meet her needs because it is too far from her home, she feels unsafe and has no interest in engaging with the staff, youth or programs at [FACILITY 1]. She also noted that she requires credit courses to complete Grade [number]. The Applicant is requesting to be transferred to [FACILITY 2], which is closer to [city 4] and her father.
i. Need for Proximity to Father and Home
7When I first spoke with the Applicant, she described having a close relationship with her father, missing home, and that her mother passed away when she was younger. She also stated that she had sisters in [city 5] but only spoke to her oldest sisters. The Applicant was concerned that, given the distance of [FACILITY 1] from [city 4], her father would not be able to visit her at [FACILITY 1]. However, she did admit that her father had called her and that they had spoken over the phone several times. The next time I spoke with the Applicant, she told me that she had a video call with her father, but if there was any chance of her father visiting her, it could only be at [FACILITY 2] in [city 2]. She accepted that while [city 2] was still a far distance from [city 4] (over a day by car), it was at least a few hours closer to her father than [city 1], and so she believed there was a greater chance he would visit her at [FACILITY 2]. The Applicant did not provide any other reason why she needed to be closer to [city 4], other than