Notice of Publication Ban

In the matter of College of Early Childhood Educators and Cassandra Elizabeth Ruth Drynan, 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 CASSANDRA ELIZABETH RUTH DRYNAN, Registration #106201

Panel

Peeter Põldre, Chair Chrystal Morden, RECE Rick Nankissoor, RECE

Appearances

Prosecutor for the College of Early Childhood Educators: Vered Beylin Independent Legal Counsel: Elyse Sunshine

Absent

Cassandra Elizabeth Ruth Drynan

Hearing dates

December 8 and 9, 2025

Decision and reasons

This Panel of the Discipline Committee decided Cassandra Elizabeth Ruth Drynan is guilty of professional misconduct, including physically abusing a child; psychologically or emotionally abusing a child; and breaching standards of practice. We ordered that her certificate of registration be revoked, that she be reprimanded, and that she pay $15,000 in costs. We explain our reasons for this decision below.

Procedural steps

Ms. Drynan did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

The evidence shows the College communicated to Ms. Drynan the purpose, date, time, and location of the hearing through emails, registered letters, phone calls, and service of the Notice of Hearing. Ms. Drynan did not respond to any of these efforts, which were thorough. We decided to conduct the hearing in her absence because it was clear she had made the decision not to participate.

Ms. Drynan was suspended for non-payment of fees on February 2, 2023. We were satisfied that we had continuing jurisdiction over Ms. Drynan while her suspension is in place.

At the Prosecutor’s request, we ordered a publication ban. This means that no one can publicly share any information that could identify any children related to this hearing.

Accusations of professional misconduct

Ms. Drynan was accused of professional misconduct¹ as defined in subsection 33(2) of the Early Childhood Educators Act (the “ECE Act”)² and its Professional Misconduct Regulation³ in that she

• Physically abused a child under her professional supervision
• Psychologically or emotionally abused a child under her professional supervision
• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession,⁴ including
  • Failing to be knowledgeable about a range of strategies that support ongoing positive interactions with children and families
  • Failing to engage in supportive and respectful interactions with children to ensure they feel a sense of security and belonging
  • 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
  • Failing to know the current legislation, policies and procedures that are relevant to her professional practice and to the care and education of children
  • Failing to model professional values, beliefs and behaviours with children, families and colleagues, and/or failing 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

Ms. Drynan’s plea

Since Ms. Drynan wasn’t at the hearing, she was deemed to plead not guilty to all of the accusations in the Notice of Hearing. This, as the Prosecutor suggested, is the normal approach when an RECE does not attend or communicate about their hearing.

Deciding if Ms. Drynan is guilty or not guilty

The Evidence

The Prosecutor provided an affidavit sworn on October 31, 2025, by AM, an Investigator employed by the College who was assigned to investigate this case. AM wrote that he does not personally know any of the individuals mentioned in his affidavit, has no personal interest in the results of Ms. Drynan’s case, and has not received any favour or consideration in exchange for providing evidence.

AM’s affidavit described his investigative steps in detail and attached copies of the documents from the College’s investigation. It included the following information:

Complaint to the Ministry of Education

On March 7, 2022, the Ministry of Education (the “Ministry”) received a complaint from JK, who had been a placement student at the Kidorable Child Care Centre – Jim Ashton site (the “Centre”) in London, Ontario. Ms. Drynan was an RECE who later became a supervisor at the Centre.

JK reported that between late September 2021 and early December 2021, she saw Ms. Drynan and two other staff in the preschool room restrain a child (the “Child”) on their bed by putting a blanket and their legs over the Child during nap time. The Child kicked and punched the staff while this occurred. According to JK, the Child was approximately three-and-half to four years old.

Referral from Children’s Aid Society

On March 8, 2022, the Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (“CAS”) notified the Centre that it had received a referral about three staff in the Centre’s preschool room restraining the Child during nap time.

CAS opened an investigation into the allegations against Ms. Drynan. There is no evidence about the outcome of the CAS investigation.

Serious Occurrence Report

On March 8, 2022, after communicating with CAS, NE, the Centre’s Operator, filed a Serious Occurrence Report with the Ministry citing an “Allegation of abuse and/or neglect” that occurred on March 7, 2022. The report notes that CAS had been anonymously informed that three staff were restraining a preschool child to their bed.

Ministry’s monitoring inspection

On March 9, 2022, two Ministry Program Advisors conducted an unannounced on-site monitoring inspection (the “Ministry Inspection”) of the Centre. The Ministry identified multiple non-compliances with the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, which were assigned critical, high, or moderate risk ratings. One occurrence was rated “critical risk”: the Centre permitted and staff engaged in physical restraint of a child for the purposes of discipline or in lieu of supervision. It was later confirmed that Ms. Drynan was one of the staff who engaged in the restraint.

Four occurrences were rated “high risk”:

• Staff did not regularly check on sleeping infants and toddlers as required by the Centre’s policies and procedures. Several children’s heads were covered while sleeping, which impaired staff’s ability to check on them.
• The Centre did not enforce its sleep policies and procedures. The Ministry cited two examples of this. One, in addition to not regularly checking on sleeping children, one staff member did not document changes in children’s sleep patterns. Two, multiple staff members wrapped a child in a blanket to help them sleep, despite there being no documented need for it.
• The Centre did not properly implement a particular child’s individualized support plan. A staff member who worked with that child confirmed that they had never reviewed the plan.
• Ms. Drynan initially told the Ministry that she had never restrained the Child. Later she admitted she had wrapped the Child tightly in a blanket and put her legs over the Child to confine them to their bed so that they would not disrupt other children.

The other five Serious Occurrences were rated “moderate risk”.

During the Ministry Inspection, NE explained that a Resource Consultant from an external agency had advised staff at a different Kidorable site to use a weighted blanket and to place a leg over one specific child to help them fall asleep. He said that staff at the Centre (the Jim Ashton site, where Ms. Drynan worked) misunderstood this advice and mistakenly applied it to the Child.

The Centre’s Sleep Supervision Policy and Procedures

The Centre’s Sleep Supervision Policy and Procedures (the “Sleep Policy”) prohibits

Physical restraint of the child, such as confining the child to a high chair, car seat, stroller or other device for the purposes of discipline or in lieu of supervision, unless the physical restraint is for the purpose of preventing a child from hurting himself, herself or someone else, and is used only as a last resort and only until the risk of injury is no longer imminent.

The Sleep Policy requires staff to conduct direct visual checks of preschoolers every 30 minutes and to record these checks. Staff are also required to document changes in sleep patterns in the children’s files and in the daily written record.

The Centre’s Program Statement

The Centre’s comprehensive Program Statement states, among other things, that educators must build trust with children by being available, sensitive, caring, and nurturing.

As noted above, the Ministry Inspection found that staff violated the Program Statement and management failed to enforce it.

Compliance Order against Ms. Drynan

On April 19, 2022, the Ministry issued a Compliance Order against Ms. Drynan, which states that Ms. Drynan admitted that she:

• took the Child’s arms and placed them by their sides,
• crossed the Child’s feet,
• wrapped the Child tightly in a blanket,
• placed the Child face down on their bed
• placed her legs over the Child’s body while rubbing the Child’s back until they fell asleep

Ms. Drynan confirmed that the Child did not like this and cried while being restrained. She said she restrained the Child to help them fall asleep so they would not disrupt other children.

Restraining a child on their bed during nap time is prohibited under Ontario Regulation 137/15, section 48(2), made under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014. The Compliance Order required Ms. Drynan to stop engaging in restraint practices and any other prohibited practices.

Protection Order against the Centre

The Ministry issued a Protection Order against the Centre on June 16, 2022. The Protection Order required both of the Centre’s sites to immediately close until they could satisfy the Ministry that they had complied with the Protection Order.

Interview with JK

As part of the College’s investigation, AM interviewed JK on April 18, 2023.

JK said that she was completing a student placement at the Centre. Ms. Drynan was her placement mentor. What she saw at the Centre between September 2021 and December 2021 was “very taxing mentally”, so she decided to drop out of her placement early in December 2021.

JK said that the Child did not like being on their bed. Ms. Drynan would pick the Child up and place them on the bed, which caused the Child to kick and scream. Using both arms, Ms. Drynan would push down on the Child’s shoulders and back and then cover the Child with a blanket until they fell asleep. This usually took 30-45 minutes. Ms. Drynan did not restrain any children other than the Child. Ms. Drynan demonstrated this restraint method to JK with the expectation that she too would use it on the Child. Other staff in the classroom used the same restraint method on the Child.

The Child had a support plan that indicated they were non-verbal and reacted physically to instructions. For this reason, the Child needed more time for transitions and extra direction, but there were no specific details.

JK reported the Centre to the Ministry and CAS on March 7, 2022. The reason for the lag in reporting is because it took her time to process what she saw and to realize its severity. She did not know whether her concerns were verified by CAS.

JK did not report Ms. Drynan’s conduct directly to the Centre. She said that one manager, HR (RECE), was already aware of what was happening and witnessed it herself on multiple occasions. HR and Ms. Drynan were friends outside of work. JK also said that another manager, NE, was not involved in the day-to-day operations in a way where he could be of help. JK said that management “was not very good” and staff “were not receiving a lot of support.”

Communication with NE

In a phone call with AM on June 29, 2022, NE said that Ms. Drynan and AS were the two RECEs involved in the Critical Occurrences identified by the Ministry. Before the Ministry Inspection (and unrelated to her conduct with the Child), Ms. Drynan had moved to an administrative non-RECE position.

NE also said that although the Ministry considered Ms. Drynan’s use of the blanket on the Child to be restraint, this was not her intent. When AM asked if he knew what her intent was, NE answered that there was a child at another Kidorable site who used a weighted vest. An external Resource Consultant had advised staff how to manage that child, and Ms. Drynan was applying that advice to the Child.

In an email to AM dated July 7, 2023, NE wrote that Ms. Drynan began her employment at the Centre in early 2021 as a preschool educator. In late November to early December 2021, she moved into a supervisory role. Her employment at the Centre ended on June 16, 2022.

Communication with Ms. Drynan

AM left Ms. Drynan three voicemails in March 2023. On March 21, 2023, he emailed Ms. Drynan to follow up, indicating the need to speak with her about the College’s investigation. On March 23, 2023, Ms. Drynan wrote back: “Hi at the moment I’m not sure on my availability. Once I figure it out I’ll let you know.” She also wrote, “I do have a question as to why I’m still be [sic] contacted about something that I was told was no longer a conversation.”

AM emailed Ms. Drynan on March 23, 2023, explaining that the College had never contacted her about this matter before and that she may be confusing the College’s investigation with the processes of other authorities. AM again indicated he needed to speak with Ms. Drynan to discuss next steps, including the possibility of permanently resigning her registration since she was already suspended for non-payment of fees at that time. AM gave Ms. Drynan until March 27, 2023, to respond.

Having not heard from Ms. Drynan by March 27, 2023, AM emailed her the College’s Book of Documents and a notification of the Registrar’s Complaint that same day. AM received no further communication from Ms. Drynan. On May 9, 2023, RP, an Investigations Coordinator employed by the College phoned Ms. Drynan to follow up on multiple emails that had been sent to her. Ms. Drynan’s phone number on file with the College was no longer active.

Interview with HR

On January 11, 2024, AM interviewed HR, an RECE employed as a manager at the Centre.

HR said that she did not see Ms. Drynan place her legs over the Child during sleep time or place the Child’s arms by their sides and cross their feet and then wrap them in a blanket.

On one occasion – on a date she could not recall – HR was conducting a walk-through of the Centre and observed the Child on their bed wrapped in a blanket “like a burrito” but “loose around the arms” while sleeping. She did not see Ms. Drynan use restraint to wrap the Child.

HR did not document her observations or speak with Ms. Drynan about them, and she could not recall if she shared her observations with the Centre’s management. She did not report to CAS, although she indicated that CAS attended the Centre with the Ministry. She said she spoke with a Ministry representative but had “no idea” if CAS conducted an investigation. She did not provide any dates for these events.

HR said she did not observe other staff use restraint on children, and none of the Centre staff or placement students spoke to her about restraint practices or Ms. Drynan’s involvement in them.

The Prosecutor’s comments about Ms. Drynan’s conduct

Admissibility, credibility and reliability of the evidence

The Prosecutor said that Ms. Drynan should be viewed as not objecting to the use of affidavit evidence and as giving up her right to cross-examine AM on his affidavit since she was not at the hearing.

The Prosecutor then said that AM should be considered credible and reliable. He is a College employee who understands that he is obligated to be honest and accurate in documenting evidence.

In terms of the witnesses to the events in question, the Prosecutor said that JK’s evidence should be given full weight. She directly observed Ms. Drynan’s conduct over several months and had no motivation to be untruthful. Despite her delay in reporting, which was understandable because she needed time to process her distressing experience at the Centre, JK’s statements were clear and consistent with her own earlier statements and those of the Ministry and other witnesses. The Prosecutor also pointed out that documentation of JK’s interview with AM was shared with Ms. Drynan, and Ms. Drynan did not dispute what JK said.

The Prosecutor pointed out that HR’s evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of others, including JK and Ms. Drynan herself. Moreover, it appeared that HR – who was an RECE at the Centre – was trying to distance herself from any knowledge of Ms. Drynan’s conduct.

Physical abuse

The Prosecutor argued that the evidence showed it was more likely than not that Ms. Drynan physically abused a child under her professional supervision. Specifically:

• JK told CAS, the Ministry and AM that she saw Ms. Drynan forcibly holding the Child down with both her hands and wrapping the Child in a blanket on their bed. Ms. Drynan then placed her legs on the Child's back and legs. JK observed that this went on for approximately 30 to 45 minutes multiple times over a 3-month period.
• Ms. Drynan admitted to these acts.
• The Ministry assessed Ms. Drynan’s restraint of the Child as a critical risk.

The Prosecutor highlighted the repeated and prolonged nature of Ms. Drynan’s conduct and cited past discipline cases where an RECE has been guilty of physical abuse even though the child suffered no physical marks or injuries and/or the RECE had no intention to cause harm.

Emotional or psychological abuse

The Prosecutor argued that the evidence showed it was more likely than not that Ms. Drynan emotionally or psychologically abused a child under her professional supervision. The Prosecutor noted that JK told CAS, the Ministry and AM that she saw the Child kicking, screaming, and crying in resistance to Ms. Drynan’s actions. Ms. Drynan herself admitted that the Child kicked, screamed and cried. The Prosecutor said this clearly showed the Child had an adverse emotional or psychological reaction to being restrained.

The Prosecutor did not suggest that there was long-term harm to the Child or that Ms. Drynan intended to cause harm, but she again highlighted the repeated and prolonged nature of Ms. Drynan’s conduct. The Prosecutor cited past discipline cases where an RECE has been guilty of psychological or emotional abuse even though there was no prolonged negative impact to the child and/or no intention to cause harm.

Failure to maintain professional standards

While expert evidence is typically required to prove an RECE’s failure to maintain professional standards, the Prosecutor explained that past case law says that a panel does not need to rely on expert evidence where the conduct is so egregious that it speaks for itself.

The Prosecutor said that Ms. Drynan failed to maintain professional standards as follows:

Standard

Summary of alleged breaches

Failing to be knowledgeable about a range of strategies that support ongoing positive interactions with children and families (I.B.2)

Ms. Drynan

• forcibly restrained the Child to their bed against their will in the absence of any documented need for the Child to receive sleep management strategies
• was not aware of the Child’s individualized support plan or the fact that it did not include sleep management strategies
• justified restraint as a way to prevent the Child from disrupting other children during nap time
• did not offer the Child alternative quiet activities or ways to rest during nap time

Failing to engage in supportive and respectful interactions with children to ensure they feel a sense of security and belonging (I.C.2)

Ms. Drynan

• forcibly restrained the Child on their bed against their will for prolonged episodes over several months, which caused the Child to have adverse emotional reactions until they exhausted themselves to sleep
• disrespected the Child’s wishes, autonomy and dignity, regardless of whether it caused an adverse emotional reaction

Failure 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 (III.C.1)

Ms. Drynan

• did not allow the Child to leave their bed
• did not respect the Child’s individualized support plan, which included helping the Child improve their communication and developmental skills but not sleep management strategies
• trained other staff to physically restrain the Child in the same manner she did, setting them up to use abusive conduct and potentially commit professional misconduct
• troubled JK enough that she left her placement early

Failing to know the current legislation, policies and procedures that are relevant to her professional practice and to the care and education of children (IV.B.1)

Ms. Drynan

• used physical restraint, which breaches the Child Care and Early Years Act 2014, the Early Childhood Educators Act and the Centre’s Sleep Policy and Program Statement

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 (IV.C.4)

Ms. Drynan

• used forceful physical restraint in front of her supervisees, including staff, students and children
• did not use good judgment in front of her supervisees, including staff, students and children
• taught staff and students to use forceful physical restraint
• did not fulfill her responsibilities as a supervisor
• lied to the Ministry about her conduct

Disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming conduct

Finally, the Prosecutor submitted that based on all of the above points, Ms. Drynan’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and unbecoming a member. The Prosecutor submitted that Ms. Drynan’s conduct supported the Panel in making these findings.

Why we decided the RECE is guilty

We agreed that the evidence shows that Ms. Dynan is guilty of all of the accusations of professional misconduct in the Notice of Hearing.

Admissibility, credibility and reliability of the evidence

We accepted AM’s affidavit evidence and found it to be credible and reliable. AM has no personal knowledge of the people involved in this case or personal interest in its outcome. His affidavit is supported by copies of original reports, emails, letters, receipts, screen shots, and communication logs that are chronological and cross-referenced.

We were struck by Ms. Drynan’s dishonesty with the Ministry and her uncooperativeness with AM during the College’s investigation. This led us to conclude that she was neither credible nor reliable.

We found JK to be credible and reliable. As a student, she was in a vulnerable position relative to Ms. Drynan and the Centre and she faced personal risk by reporting. We found JK’s statements to be clear and consistent from the time of her initial reporting in March 2022 until her interview with AM in April 2023. Her delay in reporting did not affect her reliability. We found her statements to be consistent with the Serious Occurrence Report submitted by the Centre, the Ministry Inspection findings, and Ms. Drynan’s descriptions of her own actions.

We found NE to be uncredible and unreliable. We felt NE had an interest in maintaining the Centre’s reputation, which biased his evidence. In addition, NE claimed Ms. Drynan had no intent to restrain the Child, but he had no way of knowing her intent. His explanation that staff were confused by a support plan meant for one child at Kidorable’s Trafalgar site and therefore inadvertently implemented it for the Child at the Jim Ashton site (where Ms. Drynan worked) was unsubstantiated and without merit.

We found HR’s testimony to be vague and therefore unreliable. It is not clear whether HR was an eye witness to the same events reported by JK. Also, as an employee of the Centre and as a friend of Ms. Drynan outside of work, her personal interest in the outcome of this case may have played a role in her vague testimony, which in turn can affect her credibility.

Physical abuse and emotional or psychological abuse

Based on the evidence, we found it to be more likely than not that Ms. Drynan physically restrained the Child with a blanket and her legs to confine them to their bed during nap time. This caused the Child to cry, scream and kick in resistance. Ms. Drynan restrained the Child this way on multiple occasions, lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes each time, over a period of 6 months. There was no documented reason for sleep management strategies to be used on the Child, much less physical restraint.

To make a finding of physical abuse, there is no need to show Ms. Drynan intended to cause bodily harm or that the Child sustained injury from Ms. Drynan’s actions.

By physically restraining the Child and causing them to have an adverse emotional reaction, Ms. Drynan committed physical and emotional or psychological abuse as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

Failure to maintain professional standards

We found it be factually true that:

• The Child had special needs but did not have an individualized support plan for sleep management. There was no justification for wrapping them in a blanket at nap time.
• While in a supervisory role, Ms. Drynan showed other staff and JK how she restrained the Child with the expectation that they would use this technique on the Child.
• Ms. Drynan initially lied to the Ministry about restraining the Child and then later admitted that she did restrain the Child.
• Ms. Drynan’s conduct was so distressing for JK that she left her placement early.

We decided that these facts establish that Ms. Drynan breached the standards of the profession:

Standard

How Ms. Drynan breached the standard

Failing to be knowledgeable about a range of strategies that support ongoing positive interactions with children and families (I.B.2)

Ms. Drynan used a blanket and her limbs to physically restrain the Child without any documented need for this and without using alternative behaviour management strategies that would have better supported the Child’s needs. This happened over a period of 6 months, making it an intentional pattern of behaviour rather than an isolated lapse of judgment. This shows her failure to be knowledgeable about strategies to support positive interactions with the Child.

Failing to engage in supportive and respectful interactions with children to ensure they feel a sense of security and belonging (I.C.2)

Ms. Drynan used a blanket and her limbs to physically restrain the Child against their will. This shows she failed to respectfully interact with the Child and failed to create a sense of security for them.

Failure 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 (III.C.1)

Ms. Drynan did not respect the Child’s autonomy or special needs. She also perpetuated inappropriate behaviour by showing her supervisees, including a placement student, how to restrain the Child. This shows Ms. Drynan failed to work in partnership with the Child and her colleagues to create a safe, healthy and inviting environment.

Failing to know the current legislation, policies and procedures that are relevant to her professional practice and to the care and education of children (IV.B.1)

Ms. Drynan used physical restraint, which is prohibited by the Centre’s Sleep Policy and Program Statement, and policies and legislation that govern the profession. This shows she failed to know the relevant legislation and policies.

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 (IV.C.4)

Ms. Drynan taught other staff and a placement student how to use abusive sleep management strategies on the Child. This caused so much distress to JK that she left her placement early. Ms. Drynan also lied about her conduct to the Ministry. This shows she failed to model professional values, beliefs and behaviours and failed to understand how her conduct reflects on her as a professional.

Disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming conduct

Based on our findings, which include Ms. Drynan’s physical, psychological and emotional abuse of a child in her care, and her breach of several professional standards, we also found her guilty of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and of conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Ms. Drynan’s conduct in relation to the Child and her behaviour in the investigation included an element of moral failing and involved dishonesty. Physical and emotional abuse of a child reflects poorly on Ms. Drynan and on the profession at large. Ms. Drynan engaged in conduct that members of the profession would regard as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. Ms. Drynan knew or ought to have known her conduct was improper, but she proceeded anyway. In her dealings with the Child and with the Ministry, Ms. Drynan’s conduct reflected negatively on her and undermined public confidence in the profession. Her conduct required regulatory intervention to protect the public and as such is conduct unbecoming.

Deciding the consequences for Ms. Drynan

The College’s position

The Prosecutor said that the College believed the appropriate consequences for Ms. Drynan were:

• Revocation of her certificate of registration
• A reprimand
• A requirement that she pay $15,000 in costs toward reimbursing the College for its expenses

The Prosecutor’s comments about the proposed consequences

The Prosecutor said the proposed consequences support the College’s overarching goal of protecting the public by:

• protecting young and vulnerable children
• maintaining public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate the profession
• denouncing Ms. Drynan’s conduct
• deterring Ms. Drynan from engaging in this type of conduct again
• deterring other RECE’s from engaging in this type of conduct

The Prosecutor explained that the proposed consequences were based on a range of facts that are unique to Ms. Drynan and the circumstances of this case.

Revocation

The Prosecutor believed that this is the worst case of forceful restraint the Discipline Committee has ever heard, particularly because it involves a child with special needs. Ms. Drynan’s conduct therefore warrants the harshest possible penalty: revocation of her certificate of registration. The Prosecutor said nothing less would properly address her misconduct and protect children, because there is no evidence that she can be remediated.

The Prosecutor presented 11 factors to support the proposal that Ms. Drynan be revoked:

1. Each incident of restraint was prolonged, lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
2. Ms. Drynan’s forceful restraint of the Child on multiple occasions was an intentional pattern of violence, not a single lapse of judgment.
3. Physical restraint is prohibited by multiple statutes and the Centre’s Sleep Policy and Program Statement. As a result, the Ministry issued a Compliance Order against Ms. Drynan.
4. The Child was vulnerable due to their young age and special needs that affected their development and communication.
5. It appears that Ms. Drynan targeted the Child because of their special needs and vulnerability.
6. The Child cried, screamed and kicked in resistance each time they were restrained, which shows they experienced profound emotional distress that Ms. Drynan completely disregarded.
7. Ms. Drynan trained staff and students to restrain the Child. This occurred when Ms. Drynan was in a supervisory role with heightened responsibility to be a positive role model.
8. Ms. Drynan’s abusive conduct, and her teaching of it to JK, had a negative emotional impact on JK, who was just starting her career in early childhood education. Her experience at the Centre was so mentally taxing that she left her placement early.
9. The incidents occurred during nap time in the presence of other children. Ms. Drynan’s conduct could have potentially eroded their sense of safety and security.
10. Ms. Drynan was dishonest with the Ministry. The Ministry was so concerned by this and by Ms. Drynan’s use of restraint that it cited one incident of critical risk and multiple incidents of high risk against Ms. Drynan and the Centre.
11. Ms. Drynan’s conduct reflects negatively on the profession and erodes the trust that parents and families place in RECEs.

The Prosecutor added that Ms. Drynan took no accountability for her conduct and has not shown insight into her conduct. She said that Ms. Drynan’s lack of prior discipline history should be seen as neutral rather than mitigating.

To support the proposal for revocation, the Prosecutor also cited the following past cases showing that serious misconduct warrants the most serious penalty of revocation:

• CECE v. Ali (2019)
• CECE v. Raybon (2021)
• CECE v. Parenteau (2022)
• CECE v. Julio (2023)
• CECE v. Johal (2023)
• CECE v. Amandeep Kaur (2025)
• CECE v. Sidhu (2025)

The Prosecutor argued that a remedial order would not be appropriate for Ms. Drynan because she has shown no signs of being open to this. Ms. Drynan misused her supervisor status to perpetuate abusive conduct by teaching it to the Centre’s staff and students, and because she was dishonest. In addition, a harsher penalty is appropriate because Ms. Drynan abused a child with special needs. The Prosecutor cited CECE v. Pansieri (2025), in which the panel decided that misconduct involving a child with special needs warrants a harsher penalty.

The Prosecutor asked us to consider whether Ms. Drynan is ungovernable, meaning that she has no regard for her role as an RECE or the College’s authority to regulate her. If we decide that she is ungovernable, this would show that she is not amenable to remediation and would reinforce the appropriateness of revocation.

The Prosecutor referred to CECE v. Tan (2021), CECE v. George (2019) and CECE v. Ali (2019), which involved RECEs who were unresponsive to the College’s communications, did not accept the College’s regulatory authority, and did not attend their hearings. The panels in these cases found revocation to be appropriate in light of the RECEs’ ungovernability and their failure to show they would be amenable to remediation.

The Prosecutor said that Ms. Drynan demonstrated her ungovernability by:

• failing to respond to almost all of the College’s communications,
• being unwilling to participate in the College’s investigation, even though she was told this was expected of her,
• failing to acknowledge the College’s authority to hold this discipline hearing,

and

• her ongoing non-payment of her annual fee, which shows she does not work as an RECE and which led to her being administratively suspended.

Reprimand

In addition to revocation, the Prosecutor said it would be appropriate to reprimand Ms. Drynan. In previous cases where revocation was ordered, the panel also ordered a reprimand. The reprimand denounces Ms. Drynan’s conduct and allows the Discipline Committee to address her directly. Given the low likelihood of Ms. Drynan attending in person for a reprimand, the Prosecutor suggested sending her the written reprimand by registered mail instead.

Costs

The Prosecutor said that costs are discretionary and are intended to help the College recover some of the costs of holding a contested hearing. They are not intended to be punitive. The Prosecutor believed $15,000 in costs would be appropriate. This would be equal to one full day for the liability portion of the hearing ($10,000) and a half day for the penalty hearing ($5,000) based on the tariff rate in the Discipline Committee Rules. This amount is consistent with past cases where costs were ordered.

Our final Order

The Discipline Committee decides what consequences are appropriate based on what will protect the public. The consequences for professional misconduct should fit the circumstances.

We accepted the consequences that the Prosecutor proposed to us. This decision is reflected in our final order (the “Order”), a copy of which is attached to this decision.

Why we made this decision

Ms. Drynan engaged in extremely serious physical and psychological or emotional abuse that warrants an extremely serious penalty. We found her conduct to be abhorrent and unconscionable, and we were appalled at her lack of insight and remorse, her outright refusal to cooperate with the College, and her lack of amenability to remediation. In these circumstances, we believe revocation is appropriate. Ms. Drynan’s demonstration that she is ungovernable further supports the need for revocation.

As in past cases where an RECE has been found to be ungovernable, nothing less than revocation would properly address her misconduct, and it sends a strong message to Ms. Drynan, the profession and the public that abusive conduct will not be tolerated. We also believe revocation sends a strong message that ungovernability will result in the Discipline Committee’s most serious consequence – losing the privilege of practicing the profession. We found the case law presented by the Prosecutor on this topic to be persuasive.

The most significant factors in our analysis were Ms. Drynan’s:

• repeating and prolonging the pattern of abusive conduct, which included multiple episodes lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes over a period of 6 months
• targeting a single child with special needs for whom sleep management was not indicated,
• carrying out this abuse in the presence of other children
• doing all of the above while in a supervisory role
• teaching abusive practices to supervisees, including JK, who was so negatively affected by Ms. Drynan’s practices that she left her student placement early
• lying about the abuse she committed, which suggests she knew her actions were wrong (and yet continued them for an extended period of time), had no remorse, and lacked respect for the Ministry’s oversight role in protecting children and families

In addition to revocation, we believe we must firmly and directly express our concerns to Ms. Drynan through a reprimand. While we expect that she will not attend in person, we nonetheless want to emphasize that the reprimand is important because it is a formal denunciation of unacceptable conduct. A copy of the reprimand is attached to this decision.

We commend JK for her exemplary action in reporting Ms. Drynan to the authorities when no other staff at the Centre took this step, especially as she faced personal risk in doing so. Her actions led to an inspection by the Ministry that revealed such serious concerns that the Ministry ordered the Centre and the other Kidorable site to be closed immediately, catching attention of local media.

Finally, we ordered costs as a way for Ms. Drynan to reimburse some of the College’s expenses in investigating and prosecuting this case. We order that Ms. Drynan pay costs in the amount of $15,000. This is in line with past cases. Ms. Drynan must pay costs within 24 months of the date of the final order in monthly installments of $625, starting 30 days after the date of the final order.

In conclusion, we want to emphasize that the Discipline Committee has flexibility in addressing professional misconduct. We make orders to help RECEs remediate their practices whenever possible. However, an RECE must show they can be remediated, want to return to practice, and respect the College’s regulatory authority. When an RECE rejects their professional obligations as blatantly as Ms. Drynan did, they need to be removed from the profession to protect the safety and well-being of children.

I, Peeter Põldre, sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chair of and on behalf of the members of the Discipline panel.

February 17, 2026

Peeter Põldre

Date

Discipline Committee of the

College of Early Childhood Educators

In the case of CASSANDRA ELIZABETH RUTH DRYNAN, Registration #106201

Panel:

Peeter Põldre, Chair Chrystal Morden, RECE Rick Nankissoor, RECE

ORDER

After a hearing on December 8 and 9, 2025, the Discipline Committee decided Cassandra Elizabeth Ruth Drynan (the “Member”) is guilty of professional misconduct,⁵ including

• physically abusing a child who was under her professional supervision
• psychologically and/or emotionally abusing a child who was under her professional supervision
• failing to maintain the standards of the profession
• acting or failing to act in a manner that, having regard to the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and/or
• conducting herself in a manner that is unbecoming a member

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERS that:

1. The Member will be reprimanded in writing within 60 days from the date of the Order. This reprimand will also be attached to the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons.
2. The RECE’s certificate of registration will be revoked (cancelled) immediately.
3. The RECE must pay $15,000 toward the College’s costs within 24 months of the date of this Order in monthly installments of $625. The first installment is due 30 days after the date of this Order.

December 9, 2025

Peeter Põldre, Chair

Date

Reprimand

RECE name

Cassandran Elizabeth Ruth Drynan

Registration number:

106201

Date of Discipline Committee Order

December 9, 2025

Ms. Drynan, on December 9, 2025 a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Early Childhood Educators found you guilty of physically and psychologically/emotionally abusing a child, and revoked your registration to practice as an RECE. That finding and this reprimand will be noted on the public register.

The Panel notes that this is the worst case of forceful physical abuse the Discipline Committee has ever seen.

The Panel found your conduct to be abhorrent and unconscionable, and would be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and most certainly unprofessional. Physically and psychologically/emotionally abusing a child is reprehensible, and on its face, constitutes conduct unbecoming a member.

In the presence of other children, you physically and psychologically/emotionally abused a child on multiple occasions, disregarding their rights as an individual. You targeted a young and vulnerable child with special needs, and compromised their health and well-being, as well as the other children in the learning environment.

You used your position of power and responsibility to violate this child on multiple occasions in one of the most heinous and unacceptable ways.

You misused your role as an educator further compounding your misconduct by providing improper and prohibited techniques to others, including a student entrusted to your supervision as a mentee.

This student was negatively emotionally impacted by your extreme lack of professionalism, and they ended their placement earlier than scheduled. This student was the person who ultimately reported your professional misconduct.

You were dishonest when you provided false information during the Ministry of Educations’ site visit. Your behaviour was so disconcerting that the Ministry cited a critical non-compliance order against the centre and ordered it closed immediately.

The Panel was appalled by your failure to cooperate with the investigation that ensued. You failed to respond to phone messages, emails, and registered letters sent to your address on file with the College. When discipline proceedings began, you showed absolutely no interest in participating, despite numerous attempts of the College to accommodate your schedule. Ultimately, you chose not to attend your discipline hearing. This shows your lack of interest in continuing to be a registered member of the profession, and your unwillingness to be regulated by the College. The Panel concludes that you are ungovernable.

You had the privilege of being a member of this College and to practise as an Early Childhood Educator. In order to protect children, we are revoking your certificate of registration immediately.

Footnotes

1. 1These accusations are detailed in the Notice of Hearing dated August 11, 2025.
2. 2Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 8
3. 3Professional Misconduct, Ontario Regulation 223/08
4. 4College of Early Childhood Educators’ Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice
5. 5Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 8; Professional Misconduct, Ontario Regulation 223/08