Young Person v. Provincial Director, 2026 ONCRB 5

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. Nobody 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 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 sharing it online or giving it to the media. Under section 138(1) of the YCJA, there may be legal consequences if this information is shared.

BETWEEN:

Young Person Applicant

-and-

Provincial Director Respondent

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Adjudicator: Sonya Vellenga

Date: January 08, 2026

Citation: 2026 ONCRB 5

Indexed as: Young Person v Provincial Director (CYFSA s.152)

OVERVIEW

1The Applicant has filed an Application with the Custody Review Board (“CRB”) under section 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 transfer him to [FACILITY 1], a secure custody facility in the [city 1] area. The Applicant seeks a transfer back to the [FACILITY 2], a secure custody facility in the [city 2].

2The Applicant is [age] years old. The Applicant is facing several serious charges and at his most recent court appearance, bail was denied. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for [month year].

3The Applicant has been detained since [month] of [year], and until [month] of [year], the Applicant was placed at [FACILITY 2]. In [month] of [year], the Applicant was transferred to [FACILITY 1] along with the 3 other males in the facility to accommodate the needs of the female residents at [FACILITY 2]. The Applicant was transferred to [FACILITY 1] as this facility was in his jurisdiction.

4In conducting this review, I spoke to:

• the Applicant;
• C. T., Probation Officer;
• S. K., Administrator, [FACILITY 2];
• G.T., Social Worker, [FACILITY 1];
• D.W., Administrator, [FACILITY 1].

5In addition, I reviewed the following documents:

• Warrant of Committal dated [date];
• Warrant Remanding a Young Person dated [date];
• Non-Communication Order dated [date].

ISSUE

6Is the Applicant’s placement at [FACILITY 1] not appropriate to meet his needs.

RESULT

7I find that the Applicant’s placement at [FACILITY 1] is appropriate to meet his needs and I confirm the decision of the Provincial Director to place the Applicant at [FACILITY 1].

ANALYSIS

8On a review under section 152 of CYFSA, the CRB has the authority to review a youth’s placement, including the level of detention.

9In conducting my review and making a recommendation under subsection 152(7)(a)(b) of CYFSA, I must consider whether the current facility at which the Applicant is being held is appropriate to meet the Applicant’s needs.

Background

10Based on the information obtained from the Applicant, he told me that [FACILITY 1] can meet his needs, and he spoke directly to academic upgrading and faith-based needs. He told me that [FACILITY 1] offers “a lot” of services but that the size of the facility is difficult and that there is “too much conflict” in the environment. The Applicant told me that he is “bored” on the intake unit and that he did well at [FACILITY 2] because it was a smaller centre, he fit in well with the 3 male peers in his unit, and the staffing group was “laid back and supportive”.

11I asked the Applicant if the distance to [FACILITY 2] interfered with his family relationships, and he told me that his family would prefer him to be closer but that he was able to have regular phone conversations with his family while at [FACILITY 2]. He told me that his reintegration plan includes residing with his mother.

12In my consideration of the Applicant’s request to be transferred back to [FACILITY 2], I focused on the Applicant’s need for an environment that would allow for programming and an environment that would be sensitive to his need for safe and supportive relationships.

Programming Needs

13I talked to the Probation Officer, and she told me that in her opinion [FACILITY 1] has sufficient and “amazing” programs that can meet the Applicant’s needs. She told me that the Applicant was “smart” and had been offered scholarship opportunities. In her opinion, she believed that the Applicant was a good candidate for [FACILITY 1].

14The Administrator at [FACILITY 2] told me that the youth regularly engaged in programming and academic supports while at their facility.

15I spoke with the Social Worker at [FACILITY 1], and he told me that the Applicant has not discussed his request to move back to [FACILITY 2] with him. He told me that he had a conversation with the Applicant regarding the trades programs at [FACILITY 1] and that he was interested in this possibility as he has expressed a desire to be an Electrician.

16The Social Worker also told me that he can meet with the Applicant regularly and that the Applicant engages well and is able to express his needs and future goals.

17The Applicant told me that he asked for a Bible, and he has been able to meet with the Chaplain at [FACILITY 1].

18I find that the Applicant’s need for relevant programming opportunities is being met at [FACILITY 1]. The Applicant is facing several months of custody and the opportunity to be considered for the Trades Program at [FACILITY 1] is an opportunity that he would not receive at [FACILITY 2].

Need for a Smaller and Supportive Centre

19In the Application, the Applicant notes that he did well at [FACILITY 2] and would like to return to this placement. The Applicant told me that [FACILITY 2] will be able to accommodate male residents by the end of [month]. I spoke with the Administrator at [FACILITY 2], and she confirmed that there was a plan in place that may allow for the return of the male residents in [month] of [year]. The Administrator told me that any return of male residents to [FACILITY 2] is contingent on the [FACILITY 3] being able to open female beds in [month].

20The Applicant told me that he excelled at [FACILITY 2] and that he consistently maintained a Level 4 in terms of his behaviour at the Centre. This was confirmed by the Administrator at [FACILITY 2], and she told me that there were no issues with the Applicant while at [FACILITY 2]. The Administrator told me that she believed that there was less opportunity for conflict because [FACILITY 2] is smaller.

21The Applicant told me that he had built good relationships with both the staff and his male peers at [FACILITY 2].

22The Administrator and the Social Worker at [FACILITY 1] both told me that the Applicant was very “personable” and that there were no concerns with respect to his behaviour or engagement with conflict on the unit. The Social Worker at [FACILITY 1] told me that the Applicant has adapted well, and this was confirmed by the Administrator who noted that there have been no issues with the Applicant since his arrival at the facility.

23The Applicant is currently on the Intake Unit at [FACILITY 1], and he told me in my second call with him that he is enrolled in two courses and that the environment has been “all right”. He told me that he is still interested in returning to [FACILITY 2] but that he understands that this might not be possible.

24I find that the Applicant’s need for a safe and supportive environment is being met at [FACILITY 1]. While [FACILITY 1] is a larger facility, the Applicant has demonstrated that he is able to build relationships, and he can identify what he needs to maintain this placement safely. He can advocate for his needs, and he has demonstrated that he is able to keep out of conflict despite his placement in a larger facility.

Conclusion

25The Applicant was able to appreciate the benefits of a small facility wherein his interaction was limited to 3 youth. However, [FACILITY 2] is not able to receive the Applicant back to their facility currently. The Administrator at [FACILITY 2] told me that they would accept the Applicant back to the facility if the changes to the composition of the facility were made. My recommendation does not preclude this consideration should the composition of the facility change, however, given that [FACILITY 1] is closer to the Applicant’s family and given that the Applicant plans to live with his family upon his release, [FACILITY 1] is an appropriate facility for this youth. Furthermore, given that [FACILITY 1] can offer Trade Programming that the Applicant is interested in, and given that the youth has demonstrated that he can build safe and supportive relationships in his current facility, I find that [FACILITY 1] is appropriate to meet his needs.

RECOMMENDATION

26I confirm the Provincial Director’s decision to place the Applicant at [FACILITY 1].

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application, with anyone including through the media or online. The CRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CRB, as appropriate.