Young Person v. Provincial Director, 2026 ONCRB 8

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 22, 2026 Citation: 2026 ONCRB 8 Indexed as: Young Person v Provincial Director (CYFSA s.152)

OVERVIEW

1The Applicant has filed an Application (the “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 place him at [FACILITY 1], a secure custody facility in [city 1]. The Applicant seeks a transfer to [FACILITY 2], a secure custody facility in [city 2].

2On the Application, the youth also seeks a review of his placement in a secure facility by the Provincial Director. The youth takes issue with being placed in a secure facility and wants to be considered for placement in an open facility despite having identified only secure facilities as options for consideration on his application form.

3Notably, the Probation Officer told me that she did not support a transfer to an open custody facility as she felt the Applicant would be a flight risk. Additionally, it would appear that the youth is somewhat indecisive about a move to an open facility as the youth told the Case Management team at [FACILITY 1] in their Initial Case Management/Reintegration Planning meeting on [date], that he was not seeking a placement in an open facility. He now seems to have changed his mind. Moreover, a secure detention placement was recommended for the Applicant as noted on the Level of Detention Assessment form dated [date]. Nonetheless, on his application to the Board, despite identifying only two secure facilities for consideration by the CRB, he also requested a consideration of a transfer to an open facility.

4This is not properly before me. Section 152 (1) (c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“CYFSA”) only grants legislative review to the CRB of the Provincial Directors exercise of power. In this case, the Provincial Director never transferred the youth from an open facility to a secure facility. As such, the only issue before me is whether the Provincial Director’s exercise of function in placing the youth at [FACILITY 1] is appropriate to meet the youth’s needs.

5The Applicant is [age] years old. The Applicant is facing several serious charges involving weapons and offences against others. In 2025, the Applicant was in custody at [FACILITY 1] for a period of [number] months and was released conditionally. The Applicant was not compliant with his conditions and was readmitted to the same facility within two weeks of his release.

6In conducting this review, I spoke to:

• the Applicant;
• K.E, Applicant’s Probation Officer;
• K.O, [FACILITY 1] Probation Officer;
• V.H., Unit Manager, [FACILITY 1];
• K.H., Social Worker, [FAILITY 1];
• [step mother], Applicant’s Step Mother;

7In addition, I reviewed the following documents:

• Custody Review Board Application dated [date];
• Level of Detention communication dated [date];
• Warrant Remanding a Young Person dated [date];
• Young Person’s Case Management/Reintegration plan, dated [date].

ISSUE

8Is the Applicant’s placement at [FACILITY 1] appropriate to meet his needs?

RESULT

9I 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

10On a review under section 152 of CYFSA, the CRB has the authority to review a youth’s placement, including the level of detention.

11In 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

12The Applicant applied to the CRB previously; however, his application was not within the CRB’s jurisdiction because he applied outside the 30-day time period required. I note this previous application as it is relevant to the Applicant’s ongoing request for a transfer to a facility closer to his home location.

13The Applicant told me that [FACILITY 1] can meet his needs however he would like to be placed closer to his home community. He told me that a placement in [FACILITY 2] would be easier on his family and their ability to attend in person visits. He also told me that an individual that he knows and grew up with is also placed at [FACILITY 2] and that it would be like a “taste of home” if he were transferred to [FACILITY 2]. He also told me that he liked the fact that [FACILITY 2] was smaller and that there may be less opportunity for conflict in a smaller facility.

14The Applicant told me that he is not able to see his family right now as they are out of the country attending to family matters elsewhere. In his Application, he said that his grandfather had recently passed away and when I interviewed the Applicant, he reiterated that his main reason for the Application is that he wanted to be closer to his family. The Applicant also told me that he did not like the environment at [FACILITY 1], and he identified that [FACILITY 1] had “high standards” and that it was hard to get attention in the centre because staff are very busy. The Applicant also identified in the Application that he would like a third facility to be considered. In my interviews with the Applicant, I asked him about the third facility, and he told me that his request was for consideration of a move to [FACILITY 2] so that he could be closer to family.

15In my consideration of the Applicant’s request to be transferred to [FACILITY 2], I focused on the Applicant’s need for an environment that would be closer to his home and smaller in size. I had two interviews with the Applicant, and I asked him about his academic needs, his mental health needs and his programming needs.

16The Applicant did not identify any additional needs in these areas and so, I focused on the Applicant’s need for a smaller centre closer to home.

Need for a Smaller Centre

17The Applicant is currently on the Intake Unit at [FACILITY 1]. I spoke with the Probation Officer at [FACILITY 1], and he told me that the youth is doing well on this unit and is engaged in academic programming. He told me that he understands the youth’s request to be closer to family, however, he also told me that [FACILITY 1] is meeting his needs and that because of its size, [FACILITY 1] can provide programming that is not available in a smaller centre.

18I also spoke with the youth’s Probation Officer, and she told me that there have not been any serious occurrences since returning to [FACILITY 1]. She told me that she is supportive of the Applicant remaining at [FACILITY 1]. I asked her about the Applicant’s need for a smaller centre and she told me that the Applicant has a history of conflicts with staff and that a larger centre can manage transfers to other units to help contain potential conflicts. This ability to transfer to other units is not available at [FACILITY 2].

19The Probation Officer told me that most of the school credits the Applicant has achieved have been while in [FACILITY 1] previously. In her opinion, the Applicant has demonstrated that he is able to use the programming available to him at [FACILITY 1] and she does not support a move to a smaller centre.

20I spoke to the Unit Manager, and he told me that the Applicant has been respectful and that they do not have any concerns about him or his ability to manage his placement at [FACILITY 1].

21I spoke with the Social Worker at [FACILITY 1], and she told me that the Applicant is polite with her, and she has had no concerns with respect to his placement at [FACILITY 1].

22While the Applicant has identified the need for a smaller centre, he has also demonstrated that he is able to manage his behaviour at [FACILITY 1]. He has been there previously, and he has participated in the academic programs and other programming offered at [FACILITY 1]. A move to a smaller centre will disrupt the gains he has made.

Closer to Home

23The Applicant told me that travel to [FACILITY 1] is difficult for his family. He told me that right now his family is out of the country and is not able to visit with him. I asked him what family can visit with him right now and he told me that his stepmother is in regular contact with him, and she is supporting him while his family is away.

24I looked up the distance this facility is from his family in comparison to [FACILITY 2]. According to Google map, [FACILITY 1] is approximately one hour from his family and [FACILITY 2] is [number] minutes from his family.

25I asked the Probation Officer about the Applicant’s history of visits with his family. She told me that the Applicant did not have frequent in person visits with his family while at [FACILITY 1].

26I asked the Social Worker about the Applicant’s request to be closer to his home community. She told me that her understanding is that the Applicant’s parents do plan to return to the community but that right now, his stepmother is participating in case planning discussions and visiting arrangements. The Applicant told me that he wants his stepmom to be his surety, and that [FACILITY 2] is closer for reintegration planning.

27The Social Worker told me that while the distance to [FACILITY 1] was further than the distance from [FACILITY 2], the stepmother told her that she was able and willing to attend to visits at [FACILITY 1].

28I interviewed the stepmother, and she told me that while it would be easier for her if the youth was placed at [FACILITY 2], she does not see the distance to [FACILITY 1] as interfering with in-person visits. I told her that the youth was considering [FACILITY 2] as in his words, it felt “like a taste of home”. The stepmother told me that the family is not supportive of his relationships with previous friends as they are worried that he will be negatively influenced and furthermore, if he is familiar with another youth at [FACILITY 2], this may be detrimental for him.

29The stepmother told me that the family cares about the Applicant and that they support his placement at [FACILITY 1]. She told me that the Applicant’s father will be back in the country next month.

30While [FACILITY 2] is closer to the family, I find that this distance is not the reason for any barriers to family visiting. Currently, the family is unable to visit the Applicant regardless of the facility in which he is placed and the stepmother told me that if the travel conditions are good, she is willing and able to visit the Applicant in person on a regular basis. I find that a transfer to a closer facility will not have an impact on the visiting relationship with the Applicant’s family.

31The Applicant’s needs are being met at [FACILITY 1]. The Applicant has spent a considerable amount of time at [FACILITY 1], and the family have been in the past able to participate in case planning and family visits. The Applicant identified a nostalgia for “home”, and this reflects his need for family relationships. I find that the current placement at [FACILITY 1] is not a barrier to the involvement of family in the Applicant’s life.

RECOMMENDATION

32I confirm the Provincial Director’s decision to place the Applicant at [FACILITY 1].

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

33Parties 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.