Notice of Publication Ban

In the matter of College of Early Childhood Educators and Ghazaleh Karami, the Discipline Committee ordered that no person shall publish or broadcast the identity of, or any information that could identify any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in the hearing, or the subject of evidence in the hearing, or under subsection 35.1(3) of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007.

Discipline Committee of the College of Early Childhood Educators

In the case of Ghazaleh Karami, Registration #63662

Panel¹

Lois Mahon RECE, Chair

Amanda Barg RECE

Rick Nankissoor RECE

Meeting date: January 16, 2026

Decision and reasons

Ghazaleh Karami (“the RECE”) and the Prosecutor for the College of Early Childhood Educators participated in a Discipline Resolution Process² and agreed on a Proposed Resolution. This Panel of the Discipline Committee reviewed the Proposed Resolution and the reasons why the RECE and the Prosecutor felt it was appropriate.

We adopted the Proposed Resolution. We decided Ms. Karami is guilty of professional misconduct, including physical, verbal and psychological or emotional abuse of a child and including breaches of the standards of practice. We ordered a reprimand; a 10-month suspension; and terms, conditions or limitations meant to improve the RECE’s practice. We explain our reasons for this decision below.

Discipline Resolution Process

This case was referred to the Discipline Committee before the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee were changed on April 1, 2025, to introduce a new case management process. The Rules say that case management can be used for cases that were in progress before April 1, 2025. The neutral case management Facilitator assigned to the case decided to hold a Case Conference to Plan for Finalization with both the Prosecutor and the RECE, who had access to Duty Counsel.

At the end of the case management process, the Facilitator wrote a report based on the RECE and Prosecutor’s Proposed Resolution. The RECE and the Prosecutor had a chance to comment on the accuracy of the Facilitator’s report, and then the report was given to us to make a decision in the case.

The report said:

The accusations

After a complaint or report is made about an RECE, the College of Early Childhood Educators investigates and its Complaints Committee screens the case based on the results of the investigation.

On September 20, 2024, the Complaints Committee made accusations against the RECE. The RECE is accused of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 33(2) of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 (the “ECE Act”)³ and its Professional Misconduct Regulation⁴ in that she

• Physically abused a child who was under her professional supervision

• Verbally abused a child who was under her professional supervision

• Psychologically or emotionally abused a child who was under her professional supervision

• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession.⁵ In particular, the RECE is accused of

o Failing to be knowledgeable about a range of strategies that support ongoing positive interactions with children and families

o Failing to engage in supportive and respectful interactions with children to ensure they feel a sense of security and belonging

o Failing to work in partnership with children, families and colleagues to create a safe, healthy and inviting environment that promotes a sense of belonging, well-being and inclusion

o Failing to know the current legislation, policies and procedures that are relevant to her professional practice and to the care and education of children

o Failing to model professional values, beliefs and behaviours with children, families and colleagues, and/or she failed to understand that her conduct reflects on her as a professional and on her profession at all times

• Acted or failed to act in a manner that, having regard to the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional

• Acted in a manner that is unbecoming a member

Facts

The RECE and the College have agreed about what the facts are in this case.

By way of background, the RECE has had a certificate of registration with the College for approximately 7 years. She is in good standing with the College and does not have a prior discipline history with the College. During the incidents described below, she was employed as an RECE at Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic School (the “Centre”) in Aurora, Ontario.

On the morning of March 27, 2023, the RECE was transitioning preschool-aged children, including a 3-year-old child (the “Child”), from the playground to the classroom. The Child was laying on the ground and did not want to go inside. After another staff member tried to convince the Child to get up from the ground, the RECE engaged aggressive and forceful conduct. She approached the Child, lifted them off the ground by their hand/wrist and dragged them across a paved walkway for at least five seconds, a distance of at least 40 feet. One of the Child’s boots came off their foot. Then as she was bringing the Child into the preschool yard, the RECE held them by their upper arms and tossed them through an open gate. The Child was visibly distressed.

Because of the RECE’s conduct, the Child was upset. They laid on the floor fully dressed in their winter clothing and were crying and screaming whenever they were approached by a staff member. The Child also did not join their peers for lunch.

After lunchtime, the Child was still visibly upset and in their outdoor clothing. The RECE grabbed the Child, yelled close to their face, and then tried to forcibly remove their jacket as they cried and tried to get away from the RECE. Another staff member intervened and asked the RECE to leave the Child and give them space. The Member then walked out of the room.

The RECE and the College also agreed about the following facts:

• Video captured the first interaction, in which the RECE lifted the child by their hand/wrist and then dragged them on the ground.

• The RECE’s employment at the Centre was terminated because of these incidents.

• The College is not aware of any marks, injuries, or long-term emotional impact to the Child because of the RECE’s conduct.

• The Ministry of Education (the “Ministry”) investigated the incidents and verified that the RECE engaged in prohibited practices with the Child. The Ministry issued a Compliance Order against the RECE.

• If the RECE were to testify about this incident, she would say that her primary focus during this incident was to bring the Child inside and out of the cold and that she did not intend to harm or injure the Child.

Findings of guilt

The RECE and the College agree that the RECE is guilty of all of the accusations listed above.

The Prosecutor added in the signed Proposed Resolution that they believe:

• The RECE’s aggression and force was physical abuse.

• The RECE yelling close to the Child’s face was verbal abuse.

• The RECE’s actions had negative emotional impact on the child and were psychological and/or emotional abuse.

• The RECE’s conduct breached the standards of the profession in that

o The Code of Ethics⁶ requires RECEs to make the well-being, learning and care of children their foremost responsibility. It requires them to value the rights of children and create learning environments where all children can experience a sense of security and belonging.

o The RECE did not provide developmentally appropriate guidance to the Child.

o The RECE’s conduct included prohibited practices, which shows that she failed to know, understand and abide by legislation, policies and procedures relevant to the profession.

o She also failed to model professional values and behaviours with children.

• The RECE’s conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable. It was a serious disregard of her professional obligations, reflects negatively on her, and is unbecoming of an RECE.

Consequences for the RECE

The RECE and the College agree about what consequences would be appropriate to address the RECE’s misconduct. They propose that the Discipline Committee order:

• A verbal reprimand

• A suspension of the RECE’s certificate of registration for at least 10 months

• Terms, conditions and limitations on the RECE’s certificate of registration, including courses and mentorship, before she returns to practice

A proposed Order based on the Proposed Resolution is attached to this report.

The RECE and the Prosecutor believe these consequences are appropriate for three broad reasons.

First, they believe that the proposed consequences are consistent with goals of remediating the RECE and discouraging this RECE and other RECEs from acting similarly in the future. They also believe that these consequences will maintain the public’s trust in the regulation of RECEs.

Second, they believe that the proposed consequences take into account the specific facts that mean more and/or less serious consequences are needed to protect children and the public. These specific facts are described in their Proposed Resolution as aggravating, mitigating and additional factors.

The facts they said suggested more consequences were needed (i.e. aggravating factors) included that:

• The Child was only 3 years old.

• There were two incidents involving the Child on the same day. The first one was in the morning, and the second was after lunchtime.

• The RECE’s physical conduct towards the Child was forceful and amounted to an unnecessary power struggle. This escalated the situation rather than de-escalated it. Although the Child did not want to stand up or go inside, the way the RECE handled the situation was violent and included prohibited practices.

• The RECE was verbally abusive towards the Child when she yelled close to their face

• The Child was in emotional distress following the incidents.

• Other children could have been negatively impacted, because the incidents happened in the learning environment where other children were present. This could have negatively affected other children’s sense of security and belonging.

• The RECE’s violent and abusive conduct was serious enough to reflect negatively on the profession of early childhood education and to erode the trust parents and families place in RECEs

The facts they said suggested less consequences were needed (i.e. mitigating factors) included that:

• The RECE has no history of professional misconduct.

• The RECE’s admission of guilt shows remorse and insight and means there does not need to be a contested hearing that takes up time and resources.

They also considered that

• The College is not aware of any physical marks or injuries to the Child, nor any long-term emotional impact to the Child.

Third, they believe that the proposed consequences are in line with past cases decided by the Discipline Committee and are not against the public interest. They shared 4 past cases, which are also attached to this report.

The report described these past cases.⁷ Each of the past cases is about a situation where an RECE was physically aggressive towards a child or children in a single incident. Most of the incidents of abuse were brief, and, in three of the cases, the children were known to have disabilities. The final orders made in each of the past cases included similar consequences to those proposed in this case, including suspensions ranging from 9-14 months.

Why we adopted the Proposed Resolution

Even though the RECE and the College agreed to the Proposed Resolution, we did not have to accept it. We decided to accept the Proposed Resolution for several reasons.

First, the RECE and the Prosecutor (representing the College) agreed to the Proposed Resolution after participating in a case management process that gave the RECE information about her legal rights and options, as well as access to advice from Duty Counsel. The final step of the case management process involves the Facilitator going over the Proposed Resolution with the RECE to make sure they understand it and its consequences. These protections give us confidence that the RECE’s decision to admit guilt and to agree on a proposed order to address her professional misconduct was voluntary and clear and that she understands the consequences of admitting guilt.

Second, the Proposed Resolution describes the facts and why those facts mean the RECE is guilty of all of the accusations of professional misconduct that were made against her. We agree that the facts in the Proposed Resolution mean the RECE is guilty of professional misconduct for the reasons included in the report.

We also noticed that the RECE felt at the beginning of the case management process that she wasn't guilty of professional misconduct. She felt it was more important to pull the child out of the cold for their health and safety than to leave them outside. We appreciated that the discipline process, including case management where the RECE had support from Duty Counsel, helped her understand that her actions fell outside of the expected standards of practice.

The evidence did, in fact, show that the RECE committed misconduct. While there could have been a true health and safety issue in the moment, the RECE dragged a child a long way. The second incident highlighted for us that the RECE was herself dysregulated, and she escalated the situation rather than de-escalating it. Her actions did not support the Child’s emotional well-being, and the fact that she did not intend to harm the Child does not excuse acting outside of the standards of the profession. The RECE needs to build her toolkit of strategies to support children’s regulation to promote the well-being and holistic development of children.

Third, the Proposed Resolution also lists consequences that are proposed to address the professional misconduct and describes why they are appropriate. The Discipline Committee decides what consequences are appropriate based on what will protect children and the public. The consequences for professional misconduct should fit the circumstances, and we believe the proposed consequences will protect children and the public and maintain public confidence in RECEs for the reasons included in the report. The report listed the facts that supported more serious consequences, and those that showed why less serious consequences were necessary to protect children and the public. We agree that these consequences take into account all of those facts.

We think the courses required in the proposed order will support the RECE's learning and development. The courses are relevant to the skills the RECE needs to develop to practise within the standards of the profession.

We also think that the mentorship that will be required will help her apply that information in her practice. The mentorship is structured in a way that will prepare her to return to practice and to have support when she does return. We appreciated that 5 of the mentorship sessions can take place once the RECE is back in practice, which will allow her to use her lived experience and real-life (and theoretical) scenarios to learn from an experienced, objective RECE. Working with the mentor will give the RECE opportunities to develop her own ability to regulate in difficult situations. We also believe that a mentorship relationship is a place where the RECE can receive constructive advice, including about how to respect and support the autonomy of children, even when they are struggling.

Finally, we want to remind the RECE that she has an obligation to work within the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice at all times. The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice also protect her as a member of the profession, because they provide a guide for best practices.

Our final Order is attached to this decision.

I, Lois Mahon RECE, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chair of and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel.

January 16, 2026

Lois Mahon RECE

Date

Discipline Committee of the College of Early Childhood Educators

In the case of GHAZALEH KARAMI, Registration #63662

Panel:

Lois Mahon RECE, Chair

Amanda Barg RECE

Rick Nankissoor, RECE

ORDER

The College of Early Childhood Educators and Ghazaleh Karami (the “Member”) agree and jointly submit that the Discipline Committee make an Order:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before a Panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded within 60 days from the date of the Order.

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for a period of

a. 10 months; or

b. the period of time required to comply with terms, conditions and limitations set out in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(f) below,

whichever is greater.

The suspension will take effect from the date of this Order and will run without interruption as long as the College has not otherwise prohibited the Member from practising or suspended the Member for any other reason.

3. Directing the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

Coursework

a. Prior to the Member commencing or resuming employment as a Registered Early Childhood Educator (“RECE”) or engaging in the practice of early childhood education, as defined in section 2 of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the Member must successfully complete, with a minimum passing grade of 70% (or to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation (the “Director”) if a grade is not assigned) and at her own expense, the following courses (subject to the Director’s pre-approval):

i. Building positive and responsive relationships with children; and

ii. Positive intervention strategies.

b. The Member must provide the Director with proof of enrollment and successful completion of the courses.

Mentorship

c. Prior to the Member commencing or resuming employment as an RECE or engaging in the practice of early childhood education, as defined in section 2 of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, the Member, at her own expense, will arrange a mentoring relationship with a Mentor, who:

i. is an RECE in good standing with the College,

ii. is employed in a supervisory position,

iii. has never been found guilty of professional misconduct and/or incompetence by the Discipline Committee of the College,

iv. is not currently found to be incapacitated by the Fitness to Practise Committee of the College,

v. is not currently the subject of allegations referred to the Discipline Committee or the Fitness to Practise Committee of the College, and

vi. is pre-approved by the Director. In order to pre-approve the Mentor, the Member will provide the Director with all requested information, including (but not limited to) the name, registration number, telephone number, address and résumé of the Mentor.

d. The Member will provide the Mentor with a copy of the following documents within 14 days of being notified that the Mentor has been approved by the Director, or within 14 days after the release of such documents, whichever is earliest:

i. the Panel’s Order,

ii. the Agreed Statement of Facts,

iii. the Joint Submission on Penalty, and

iv. the Panel’s Decision and Reasons.

e. The Member will meet with the Mentor at least every 2 weeks after the Mentor has been approved by the Director to discuss the following subjects:

i. review of the College’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice,

ii. the acts or omissions by the Member, which resulted in the Discipline Committee finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct,

iii. the potential consequences of the misconduct to the parents/children affected, and to the Member’s colleagues, profession and self,

iv. the coursework the Member is ordered to complete, as set out in paragraph 3(a) above,

v. strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring, and

vi. the Member’s daily practice and any issues that arise, to ensure that she is meeting the College’s Standards of Practice (without disclosing personal or identifying information about any of the children under the Member’s care, or clients of her employer(s)).

f. The Member will complete a minimum of 2 mentorship sessions to the satisfaction of the Director prior to commencing or resuming employment as an RECE or engaging in the practice of early childhood education, as defined in section 2 of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007.

g. After a minimum of 7 sessions, the Member can seek the Director’s permission to stop participating in the mentorship sessions by providing the Director with a report by the Mentor that sets out the following:

i. the dates the Member attended the sessions with the Mentor,

ii. that the Mentor received a copy of the documents referred to in paragraph 3(d),

iii. that the Mentor reviewed the documents set out in paragraph 3(d) and discussed the subjects set out in paragraph 3(e) with the Member, and

iv. the Mentor’s assessment of the Member’s insight into her behaviour.

h. All documents delivered by the Member to the College or the Mentor will be delivered by email, registered mail or courier, and the Member will retain proof of delivery.

Other

i. Within 14 days of commencing or resuming employment as an RECE, the Member will ensure that the Director is notified of the name, address and telephone number of all employers.

j. The College may require proof of compliance with any of the terms in this Order at any time.

January 16, 2026

Lois Mahon RECE

Date

Footnotes

1. 1Both the Prosecutor and Ms. Karami gave consent in writing to have this case decided by a panel that includes two elected RECEs and one RECE who is a member of the roster.
2. 2Held pursuant to section 33.1 of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 8, and Rule 8.15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
3. 3Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 8.
4. 4Professional Misconduct, Ontario Regulation 223/08.
5. 5College of Early Childhood Educators’ Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice.
6. 6The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice
7. 7CECE v. Amandeep Kaur (169247), 2025 ONCECE 10, CECE v. Vasantha Thevakumar, 2024 ONCECE 8, CECE v. Marie Suzanne Cormier-Dein, 2024 ONCECE 12, and CECE v. Kaylee Andrea Pansieri, 2025 ONCECE 16