Skip to main content

OHRC Submission on Ontario’s Bill 119 Proposal to Expand the use of Locked Rooms in Youth Justice Facilities

Resource Type
submission

June 24, 2026

 

Introduction

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) welcomes the opportunity to offer this submission on the proposed amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) in Bill 119, Protecting Ontario's Streets and Communities Act, 2026.

The Ontario government is proposing amending the CYFSA to give those in charge of youth justice facilities the authority to place a young person in a locked room. The proposed amendments are not accompanied by any statutory safeguards or limits. Instead, the allowable circumstances for using locked rooms and any applicable procedures and standards will be set out in future regulation.1

The OHRC has concerns with the proposed expansion of authority to place children and young persons in locked rooms in youth justice facilities. The amendments risk increasing the use of highly restrictive confinement practices that are well-documented to cause harm, particularly for children and young persons with mental health disabilities and those from Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities. It is unclear that less restrictive measures to address safety concerns have been sufficiently considered or that the proposed amendments are evidence-based or supported by experts.

It is important to note that various terms may be used to describe placements where people are confined or isolated in different settings, including solitary confinement, segregation, secure de-escalation, secure isolation, seclusion – and, as in the current proposed amendments, locked rooms.

Consistent with human rights principles, international standards, and evidence regarding the harms of isolation, the OHRC urges the government to refrain from expanding the use of locked room placements, and instead, prioritize evidence-based, trauma-informed, and least-restrictive alternatives, grounded in a Human Rights-Based Approach.2 At a minimum, any consideration of expanding such authority must be preceded by meaningful consultation with affected communities and experts, a demonstrated assessment of systemic factors conducive to safety concerns, and clear statutory safeguards, including independent oversight and requirements for robust human rights-based data collection.

 

 

Human Rights and the CYFSA

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) is a provincial law that protects people from discrimination because of protected grounds such as disability, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and creed. The Code applies to various social areas, including employment, contracts, goods, services, and facilities in Ontario. The Code has primacy over all other laws in Ontario (unless the legislation expressly includes an exemption from the Code). Discrimination contrary to the Code can occur in different ways, including when people are treated differently because of a characteristic protected by the Code, or when practices or policies appear neutral but have harmful effects for people with particular Code characteristics.

The CYFSA is the key provincial law governing programs and services for children, youth, and families. The CYFSA, its regulations, and the operation of Ontario’s youth justice system are all subject to the Code. Indeed, the CYFSA states that services provided to children must be consistent with the Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 3 Further, the CYFSA expressly recognizes the need to address systemic racism and emphasizes a commitment to working with First Nations, Inuit, and Métispeoples in a manner that respects their distinct cultures, heritages, and traditions.4

The OHRC has repeatedly provided the government with advice on the CYFSA and has extensive experience regarding the human rights issues related to practices that involve locking people in isolated conditions, such as solitary confinement, seclusion, and secure de-escalation.5

 

 

The Proposed Amendments

Current use of locked rooms or facilities is extremely limited

Currently, the CYFSA generally prohibits detaining children and young persons in locked rooms or facilities.6 One exception is in the youth justice context, where young persons charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act can be held in secure temporary detention facilities, in limited prescribed circumstances, (e.g., there are serious violent charges, or significant safety risks) and where deemed necessary by a provincial Director.7 These facilities are locked settings and have enhanced security measures, including perimeter fencing, higher staffing levels, and restrictions on movement within the facility.8

Another exception is a separate authority for Directors to approve locked rooms in service settings as an extraordinary de-escalation measure.9 A child or young person may be placed in a secure de-escalation room where, in the service provider’s opinion the child or young person is likely to cause property damage or bodily harm to others, and no less restrictive intervention is practicable.10

The CYFSA includes several safeguards governing the use of secure de-escalation rooms limiting the duration of confinement. 11 In all cases, the child or young person must be released as soon as the person in charge is satisfied that they are no longer likely to cause serious property damage or serious bodily harm in the immediate future.12

The CYFSA also requires periodic review of the continued need for secure de-escalation rooms and prescribed operational matters, with written reports submitted to a Director every three months, or every six months in secure custody and secure temporary detention settings.13

Importantly, the CYFSA does not authorize locking children or young persons in rooms or facilities for discipline, punishment, convenience, program management, or routine behavioural control.

 

The proposed amendments expand the authority for the use of locked rooms

The proposed amendments to the CYFSA would expand the authority to use locked rooms in secure youth justice facilities by enabling “a person in charge of a place of secure custody or a place of secure temporary detention” to place a young person in a locked room. The allowable circumstances, procedures, and standards for such placements would all be made via future regulation.14 The accompanying proposal posting on the Ontario Regulatory Registry states that “[t]o contain and manage high-risk safety incidents, frontline staff may need to temporarily place young persons in secured areas in secure youth justice facilities to protect the safety and security of both youth and staff.”15 The posting further states that that the limited circumstances where this is currently permitted are insufficient to address safety needs.16

The information regarding the proposed amendments is limited and unclear, including how the proposed use of locked rooms interacts with the current CYFSA framework for secure de-escalation placements. Nor does it address the implications for expanding decision-taking authority from Directors only to those in charge of places of secure custody or secure temporary detention.

 

 

OHRC input on the proposed amendments

Expanding authority for the use of locked rooms despite longstanding concerns about the harms of such practices

Longstanding concerns about the use of isolation and confinement for young people have led to calls for more restrictions, oversight, and transparency regarding such practices – not expanding the legal authority for such placements, as per the government’s proposal.

Human rights bodies, international organizations, and advocacy groups have consistently raised concerns about the significant harms associated with isolation and confinement practices for young people. In previous submissions to the government about the CYFSA, the OHRC has recommended prohibitions and strict limits on the use of practices like solitary confinement and secure de-escalation for young people. The United Nations also strongly condemns the use of such practices. The United Nation’s Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty prohibits disciplinary use of closed or solitary confinement,17 and in 2011 the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment calling for an absolute ban on solitary confinement for juveniles.18 In 2021 the government also agreed to a $15 million settlement in the Youth Confinement Class Action,19 which alleged that the isolation of the young people caused mental, emotional, and physical harms during and after placement.20 

 

Risk of disproportionate impacts on particularly vulnerable Code-protected children and youth

The OHRC is deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to expand the authority for using of locked rooms in youth justice facilities will disproportionately impact Code-protected children and youth, with young people who have mental health and addiction disabilities and/or who are racialized or Indigenous being particularly vulnerable.

Children and young persons with mental health disabilities may be especially vulnerable to harm, as placement in a locked room can exacerbate existing mental health conditions, increase distress, or contribute to further behavioural escalation. In addition, young persons whose behaviour is linked to disability-related needs may be disproportionately subjected to restrictive interventions like locked rooms in circumstances where accommodation, therapeutic supports, or other less restrictive measures would be more appropriate. Expanding the authority for the use of locked rooms for young persons without the development and implementation of alternatives that are consistent with the best interests of a child, least restraint practices and the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship under the Code may result in increased use of isolation for this vulnerable population, rather than the provision of appropriate supports and accommodations.

Young people who are Indigenous, Black, or from other racialized communities are also at risk of disproportionate impacts from any expanded use of locked rooms, in part due to the fact that they are already overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system as a result of ongoing presence of systemic racism and colonialism. Given the existing evidence of the systemic inequalities in this sphere, expanding the authority for the use of locked rooms, particularly in the absence of safeguards and monitoring, raises significant risks of perpetuating or exacerbating these existing disparities.

 

Unclear that less restrictive measures to address safety concerns have been sufficiently considered

The OHRC recognizes the importance of ensuring the safety of young persons and staff in youth justice facilities. However, given the harms associated with isolation and confinement practices, and the potential for discriminatory impacts on Code-protected groups, the OHRC is concerned that the government has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that expanding the use of locked rooms is necessary, effective, or proportionate.

Neither Bill 119 nor the accompanying Ontario Regulatory Registry posting provides any information regarding the nature, scope, or causes of the safety concerns that the proposed amendments are intended to address. It is not clear whether staffing shortages, inadequate staff training, overcrowding, infrastructure limitations, funding pressures, service gaps, or other systemic challenges may be contributing to safety incidents within youth justice facilities. If such factors are driving safety concerns, addressing those underlying issues is warranted before expanding the use of locked rooms.

In addition, the materials provide no information about whether the proposed expanded use of locked rooms was informed and are supported by experts and are evidence-based.

Given the significant human rights implications of expanding the use of locked room placements, transparency regarding the evidentiary basis for the proposed amendments is essential.

 

All safeguards are deferred to future regulations

The proposed amendments to the CYFSA expand the authority to place young people in locked rooms without any accompanying statutory safeguards. Instead, the development of any associated conditions or safeguards will be deferred to future regulations. Given the potential harmful effects of placing young people in locked rooms, and the risk of disproportionate impacts on vulnerable Code-protected groups, relying entirely on future regulations provides insufficient assurance that appropriate human rights safeguards will be in place. While the government may take the position that any such future regulations will involve consultation and expert input, regulations are nonetheless not subject to the same level of scrutiny and approval as statutes.

While the OHRC has serious concerns about expanding the authority for using locked rooms in the first place, at a minimum, such amendments must be accompanied by clear statutory safeguards such as: enhanced protections or prohibitions for particularly vulnerable Code groups; strict time limits; review, reporting and oversight – including independent oversight; and mandatory collection, analysis, and public reporting of human rights-based data regarding locked room placements.

 

 

OHRC recommendations

  1. The government should not expand the use of locked room placement in youth justice facilities. The government should instead move toward evidence-based alternatives that address safety concerns through therapeutic, trauma-informed, and least-restrictive approaches, consistent with human rights principles, international standards, and evidence regarding the harms of isolation on children and young people. The government should ensure that meaningful consultation with Indigenous, Black, and racialized communities, disability organizations, youth advocacy groups, Ombudsman Ontario, and other relevant subject matter experts has been completed before proceeding with or finalizing any proposed legislative amendments as well as any related regulations. Such consultation should include meaningful opportunities to review and comment on proposed safeguards, oversight mechanisms, data collection requirements, and accountability measures.
     
  2. Any expanded authority to use locked rooms should be accompanied by clear safeguards set out directly in the statute and should not be left to regulation. These safeguards should include, but not be limited to the following:
     
    1. clear statutory limits on when locked rooms may be used.
       
    2. enhanced protections or prohibitions for particularly vulnerable groups such as children and persons with disabilities, particularly mental health disabilities.
       
    3. strict maximum time limits on any placement.
       
    4. requirements for independent oversight review.
       
    5. mandatory collection, analysis, and public reporting of human rights-based data regarding all uses of locked room placements.
       
    6. mandatory consideration and documentation of less restrictive alternatives before a locked room placement is authorized.
  3. Before expanding the authority to place children and young persons in locked room placements, the government should ensure that systemic factors that may contribute to safety incidents including staffing shortages, staff training, overcrowding, infrastructure limitations, funding pressures, and service gaps are considered and addressed. The government should publicly demonstrate why less restrictive measures are insufficient before relying on expanded confinement powers as a response to safety concerns.

 

 

 

1 Bill 119: An Act to enact two new Acts and to amend various other Act, Sched. 1 at s.17. (online pdf): <https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2026/2026-05/b119_e.pdf>

2 Adopting an HRBA means giving particular attention to people who are most vulnerable or disadvantaged on grounds protected under the Code, such as gender, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, or disability, when developing and implementing a law, policy, procedure, program, or service. This includes ensuring that people are not subject to discriminatory treatment and that policies and programs account for pre-existing sources of disadvantage and inequitable conditions.

3 Article 37(c) of the Convention states that every child who is deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner which considers the needs of persons of their age. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (20 November 1989) Article 37(c) online:<https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child>.

4 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at Preamble.

5 Resources include:

6 Service providers and foster parents may not detain a child or young person except where expressly authorized Under Part VI (Youth Justice) or Part VII (Extraordinary Measures) Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.5.

7 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.148(1) and 148(2).

8 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.145(1).

9 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.173(1).

10 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.174(3)(a). A child under the age of 12 may also be placed in a secure de-escalation room where the Director gives permission due to exceptional circumstances. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 at s.174(3)(b).

11 A child or young person placed in a secure de-escalation room must be released within one hour unless the person in charge authorizes a longer placement in writing and records the reasons why a less restrictive intervention is not appropriate.[11] The child or young person must be continuously observed by a responsible person, and any placement extending beyond one hour must be reviewed at prescribed intervals. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, at s. 174.

For children and young persons under the age of 16, placements may not exceed eight hours in a 24-hour period or 24 hours in a week. For young persons aged 16 or older in secure custody or secure temporary detention, confinement beyond 24 continuous hours or 24 aggregate hours in a seven-day period requires approval from the provincial director, who must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the extension is necessary for the safety of staff or young persons in the facility. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, at s. 174(8) & 174(9).

12 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, at s. 174(7).

13 Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, at s. 175.

14 Bill 119: An Act to enact two new Acts and to amend various other Act, Sched. 1 at s.2.& s.17 (online pdf): <https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2026/2026-05/b119_e.pdf>

The government is also proposing to amend section 174 by adding a reference to Part VI (Youth Justice). This proposed amendment would clarify that the general prohibition on placing a child or young person in a locked room does not apply where the use of locked room is authorized under the proposed section 145(5). In support of this proposed expanded authority, section 344 would be amended giving authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulation prescribing the applicable standards for locked rooms, the circumstances in which a child or young person may be placed in such a room, and the procedures that must be followed in doing so Bill 119: An Act to enact two new Acts and to amend various other Act, Sched. 1 at s.3. (online pdf): <https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2026/2026-05/b119_e.pdf>

15 Government of Ontario. “Bill 119, Protecting Ontario's Streets and Communities Act, 2026 - Proposed Amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to Improve Safety and Supports in Youth Justice Facilities”, online: <https://www.regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca/proposal/54096>.

16 Ibid.

17 Ontario Human Rights Commission “Ontario Human Rights Commission Submission regarding Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017” (April 3, 2017) online: <https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/submission-regarding-bill-89-supporting-child…;.

18 Juan E Méndez, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UNGAOR, 66th Sess, Agenda Item 69(b), (7 October 2013). Online: <https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/SPECIAL_RAPPO…;.

19 The Youth Confinement Class Action was brought on behalf of persons whole under the age of 18 were placed in segregation for more than 6 consecutive hours between April 1, 2-04 and December 17, 2018, at one of the following Ontario Youth Justice Facilities:

  • Bluewater Youth Centre
  • Brookside Youth Centre
  • Cecil Facer Youth Centre
  • Donald Doucet Youth Centre
  • Invictus Youth Centre
  • Justice Ronald Lester Youth Centre
  • Roy McMurtry Youth Centre
  • Sprucedale Youth Centre
  • Toronto Youth Assessment Centre

https://kmlaw.ca/cases/youth-confinement-class-action/

20 C.S. v. Ontario, 2021. “Settlement Agreement” at pg. 57, (October 14, 2021) online: <https://assets.kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Settlement-Agreement…;.