Piagetsky

I say: don't do it. Don't do any type of unfunded PhD program, ever. Not only are you going into massive debt, I've also heard you can be considered somewhat of a 'second-rank' student by faculty, and from what I've heard fellowships such as mentioned KatKad usually go to students who got funding from the start.

Especially since you mention wanting to have kids - a PhD program can be really intense and takes a long time. It's difficult to have children while you're in the program even leaving any financial issues aside, and you probably don't want to have kids as soon as you're done either, since you'd want to get a secure, proper job first (or build a client base, or whatever). Though I guess if you're a guy that wouldn't be as much of a concern. Of course, not everyone wants to have kids. But it sounds like it might be important to you. So: consider your priorities, because you can't have everything you want. Do you prefer years of (stressful, but awesome) studying and learning and becoming really good at something? Do you prefer financial security, not having to worry about whether you'll be able to afford rent (or food, or health insurance) next month, every month? Do you prefer building a family? Everyone will have different answers, so there's no right or wrong... But 200.000 dollars (or 100.000, or 50.000) is a lot and so this is time for serious prioritizing! Good luck!

DONT DO IT

If you just want to become a practicing therapist, save the time and money and go for an MSW. If you're interested in an academic-research career, wait until the next admissions cycle rolls around and apply exclusively to programs that fund their students. NO program is worth that much money, and it could be 15 or 20 years until you break even on that investment. When there are so many other cheaper options available, and funded programs, and fellowships, etc., there's no need to go that far in debt for a doctoral degree.

Recommended for admission for the CCP at OISE. Phew.  

I just got recommended for acceptence at UNB!!!!!!! I'm going to go cry now. 

This may be obvious to some of you but I'll say this anyways. 
If a program is truly your top choice, and if you will say "YES" if an offer was extended, LET THEM KNOW one way or another.
As an applicant 5 years ago, I let my top choice know that if they made me an offer, I will accept. They did, and I did.
Now as a faculty, I ask applicants how they would feel if we extended an offer, and you bet I will make the first offers to someone who I know will say YES first. 
Now, obviously, I'm not advocating you lie. In academia, everyone knows each other and false promises may come back and hunt you. But if you have a top choice in mind, don't be shy in letting them know that. A lot of the times, the top 2~4 candidates are equal, and in those cases, one bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush. 
 

i am somewhat ashamed of the lengths i just went to in order to determine if my POI could also have been at a conference over the last week.

I feel like "ranking" clinical programs in Canada is pointless if they're accredited by the CPA. I think the rankings matter more in the US since there's a glut of non-accredited clinical PhD and PsyD programs. There's the basics such as funding, practicum opportunities, etc. that you need to consider when making a decision, but it's more important to consider the reputation of your individual POI, as they're the ones who will, largely, be writing reference letters for you, which will determine what internship opportunities you get (take it from me, the right POI can open doors for you in terms of research and clinical opportunities). 
What's most important is that you attend a program that will provide you with the necessary skills and experience to 1) get an accredited internship, and 2) meet the licensing requirements in your province. I have yet to hear of a Canadian program that fails to do this. 

I think during application time we all sort of start to become that person, haha.

I think the biggest thing with getting a master's before a PhD in Canada is that when you apply to clinical programs, you will still most likely have to apply to the MA/MSc rather than the PhD. It seems that although a lot of schools do accept PhD applications, it's very unlikely that they'll actually accept external PhD applicants. You seem to be aware of that, though. 
I've also gotten the impression that some programs prefer students straight from undergrad, but even at these programs there seem to be students that have taken many years off after undergrad or who did masters programs. Overall, I don't think it's something you need to worry about. There may be some POIs looking for impressionable undergrads who they can mold to their liking, but those probably aren't people you'd want to work with anyway. 

Yep, the reason is that there are rules and procedures, and it's never a good idea to go over someone's head to their boss without talking to them first. If you go to the dean, the first thing s/he will do is ask if you've tried talking to your department first and resolving this problem in-house. A grading issue will eventually need to be resolved by the department, not the dean, so there is no avoiding talking to them and getting their opinion on it. It's always better if you resolve things locally rather than escalate (which going to the dean would be interpreted as!). When you take drastic measures, you want documented proof that you've tried to do things the right way first and your efforts were rebuffed or ignored, otherwise your actions may be misinterpreted as overreacting and not following institutional norms, which will hurt your case that you are in the right and they are in the wrong. At the end of the day, grades are subjective and it's hard to believe that someone will force your professor to give you a grade they disagree with, so it's important to stay calm and document that there is a real issue here. You want to appear as someone calm and reasonable, who has a real issue, and is doing everything by the book to get it solved.  

Depending on how the conference abstract/title is phrased, you perhaps have the ability to present something else at the conference. In the upcoming months you could run a slightly different analysis and present the new results instead of the controversial data. The great thing about poster presentations is that it gives you an opportunity to interact with experts who can give you new ideas or advice about how to expand/improve your project.
When preparing for meeting with your advisor, try to be as proactive as possible. Think about various alternative plans and bring those to the table. Assume that your PI is not going to tell you to just give up entirely on the project. How can you rework or re-run the data? Is there a better statistical model you could apply? What are the short-term fixes? What are the long-term fixes? If your only contribution to the discussion is "It's Wrong! It's Wrong! It's All Wrong! Everything Is Hopeless!" then I could imagine your PI getting annoyed. Certainly don't blame the PI for any of this ("You didn't read through that paper properly"/"You dismissed my concerns out of hand."). Apologise briefly for not realising the problem(s) sooner, but 1 short apology early on in the discussion should be enough. 
 

I think that the answers to your questions don't matter. It's not about him, it's about you. I would schedule a meeting with the Director of Graduate Studies or the Chair of your department ASAP. The question to ask is not what will happen to him, but how they will work to support you during this time when you don't have access to your advisor. Ask to be assigned a secondary advisor, hopefully someone who would be willing to take over in case your advisor doesn't come back. Putting someone on administrative leave and not allowing them access to their students is a drastic move, and would imply that something is seriously wrong, and could take a long time to figure out.* I would guess that this may not end well for your advisor, given that this has happened. Even if he is fully exonerated from whatever the charges are, his reputation has been hurt, and likely also his relations with colleagues. He may not recover, or he may want to move to a new place of employment. (Of course, these are guesses, I have no way of actually knowing what is going on!). Either way, I would suggest that you take steps to protect yourself in case your advisor doesn't come back, or even in case his reputations is so hurt that even if he does survive this, you won't want to be associated with him. 
* Guesses: the two things that come to mind are some inappropriate behavior toward a student or colleague (some kind of harassment or mistreatment) or a problem with academic integrity. But again, these are baseless guesses. If I am on the right track, though, these things can easily take several months to figure out. Official sanction procedures are slow. 

I'm trying to convince myself that checking every day for updates when the deadline for submission of documentation hasn't yet passed is completely pointless.  

(It's not working.)

This is a VERY good way to study. When I was an undergrad, I rarely ever studied. Well, in a traditional sense. I would essentially re teach my friends the material presented in the class. Though my lesson would be shaky at first, I would eventually be able to convey the concepts clearly and concisely. In my experience, the professors have been teaching the same material for years and years, so things that are apparent to them might not be so obvious to students. So, in being able to simplify the lessons in MY OWN words and teach it to other students, I can ensure that I fully understand a concept. Only when I couldn't clearly explain something in the class would I go back and review my notes/book until i would be able to.

Oh, sweetie! No, you're totally right: you need to be doing the opposite of this. You don't have a whole lot of time and space to experiment, I realize, but can you try reverse outlining your chapters? Write summaries in your own words—I am comfortable enough with my material to allow some quotation, but for really difficult readings, I only let myself paraphrase. There's lots of other tips and tricks you can try, but you want to force that extra step of comprehension, not just remembering. Is there a study skills center you can go to through your university?
That sounds about like my attention span, so don't worry about it. If at all possible, try to make those breaks good breaks, though. Go divert your attention into something else—look out the window, do some stretches, make yourself a copy and try to think about other things—for ten or fifteen minutes, so that you can come back a little refreshed. (Getting exhausted and then clicking around the internet for twenty minutes as a 'break' will do much less for your renewed attention span.)
I'm sure other posters will have more thorough advice, but you can do this!

I don't think they do overnight if it's international, sadly. Luckily, the graduate office will except an emailed copy, so I'm relieved. I just need to spam him until it gets done. 

I had to do this last year and then rushed to the post office with barely 5 minutes before they closed the doors.  Absolutely ridiculous that 1) every school hasn't done away with snail mail materials and 2) that letter writers procrastinate this much.

Go to his/her office with a prepaid Express/Overnight envelope.  Whyyyyyyy must people make this so difficult?  Best of luck with your applications!

I don't think it'd be a bad idea to ask her if she's aware of anyone else with similar interests to her that may be taking students. Alternatively, take a look at all of the profs that are taking students and read over a couple of their most recent publications. It will give you a better idea of their current research interests and you can see if any of them even remotely link to your interests.

That's an interesting way of putting it spunky! Horizontal vs. vertical advancement. 
I'm biased towards the modern biopsychosocial model and don't have much regard for psychodynamics. That said, I think it's important not to view a biological/neuroscientific approach as superseding behavioral or social approaches. There's always a danger in science of framing phenomena reductively. Taken to an extreme, this leads to views like this:

Nobel laureate P.W. Anderson wrote an essay about the dangers of reductionism: https://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/anderson.pdf
In his words, " At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry. "
I think you could perhaps extend this to say that social psychology or clinical psychology are not just applied cognitive neuroscience. So while advances in neuroscience are yielding important insights about the operation of the human brain and mind, behavioral and intentional level approaches are not necessarily supplanted by lower-level explanations.
I don't think you can explain high-level cognition purely in terms of neural firing patterns. At some point you need to invoke emergent properties (emotions, thoughts, memories, language, etc.) that are the product of complex interactions or arrangements of lower-level phenomena. In fact, the brain itself is structured hierarchically, with feedback and feedforward pathways that give rise to higher level percepts from more basic sensory patterns (e.g., the work of Hubel and Wiesel on visual processing, the dorsal and ventral streams). Each level of abstraction has its own set of constituent units and rules governing how they are processed. Language is similarly hierarchically organized (phones --> phonemes --> morphemes --> words --> semantics --> syntax --> pragmatics --> etc). 

I don't really know what to say other than that I completely agree with you.
 
As far as your own career/school decisions, I think you've made that clear. As far as what this means for the field, I think its a bit more muddy. We don't need neuroscience to know psychodynamics isn't a falsifiable theory. We won't need "computerized skills" (we've had good statistics for a lot longer) to know what is meaningful is not always what is statistically significant, among other things. And yet through all this, some people still believe in pseudoscientific theories. I don't think any "new approaches" will change what people believe in, because we don't believe in things because they're logically sound or empirically supported. It's just a belief.
 

This is exactly what I think!  To me, it just says that they might be hard to communicate with if you ended up working with them which would be pretty brutal for a program that's 6+ years long.

Research research research! Depending on the kind of masters you're pursuing, the focus might be largely on clinical/applied work. Make sure to get some research work done as well! Sometimes this may involve you going outside of your program/department/college, but since a PhD degree is largely about publishing or perishing (or so I'm told ), you should aim to get at least some presentations under your belt, if not publications.

There's also: Choose an advisor who doesn't have a reputation for being an asshole. These political debates tarnish reputations on both sides, and my read on the field's sentiment is that it's a lot worse to be someone who rips on others via social media.
A lot of what's going on in social psychology lately reminds me of what's going on with Trump supporters: A minority that feels disenfranchised and embittered, and produces a lot of vitriol and aggression to try and provoke reform from the establishment. Make Science Great Again. 

This is a great read. Just to clear things up: "replication guru" aren't really the right words to describe Andrew Gelman. He is one the (if not THE) leading minds in statistics. People who go to his talks literally ask for his autograph – he is just that good at what he does.
That said, he has a big problem with a lot of the things people do to leverage statistical testing in a way that favors their own theories, and his blog describes these things.
This is a problem with people doing bad science, not a political "I don't like you so I'll write a blog post about you" cat fight. The take away for me is – choose an advisor who keeps up with current methods.