Notice of Publication Ban

In the matter of College of Early Childhood Educators and Vineetha Susan Zachariah, 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 VINEETHA SUSAN ZACHARIAH, Registration #168687

2026 ONCECE 4

DATE: 2026-03-16

Panel

Peeter Põldre, Chair Rick Nankissoor, RECE Barbara Brown, RECE

Meeting date: March 16, 2026

Decision and reasons

Vineetha Susan Zachariah (“the RECE”) and the Prosecutor for the College of Early Childhood Educators participated in a Discipline Resolution Process¹ 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 Vineetha Susan Zachariah (“the RECE”) is guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to supervise a child and breaching standards of practice. We ordered a reprimand; an 8-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

The RECE and the Prosecutor participated in a case management process. A neutral Facilitator held meetings with the RECE and the Prosecutor and shared information about the RECE’s options, the possible outcomes of choosing different options, and the discipline process. The RECE also had access to Duty Counsel during case management.

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 investigates and its Complaints Committee screens the case based on the results of the investigation.

On March 27, 2025, 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 (the “ECE Act”)² and its Professional Misconduct Regulation³ in that she

• Failed to supervise adequately a person who was under her professional supervision
• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession.⁴ In particular, the RECE is accused of:
  • Failing to observe and monitor the learning environment and take responsibility to avoid exposing children to harmful or unsafe situations
  • Failing to provide safe and appropriate supervision of children based on age, development and 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
  • Failing to model professional values, beliefs and behaviours with children, families and colleagues, and/or 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 Prosecutor have agreed about what the facts are in this case.

The RECE has had a certificate of registration with the College since October 2022. She is in good standing and does not have a prior discipline history with the College. At the time of the incidents described below, she was employed as an RECE at YMCA of Southwestern Ontario (the “Centre”).

On the morning of January 18, 2024, the RECE was supervising a 16-month-old child (“the Child”) in the Centre’s infant room. At approximately 8:15 a.m., she heated a cup of milk in the microwave and served it to the Child without first checking the temperature. The Child put their hand into the cup, burned their fingers and started crying in pain.

The RECE did not administer proper first aid to the Child and did not immediately notify the Centre’s management of the Child’s injury. Instead, she put the Child on her lap and tried to console them.

The Centre’s supervisor heard the Child screaming and crying and entered the room. By then, the Child’s burns had already begun to develop blisters. The supervisor notified the Centre’s director, who came into the room and told the RECE how to administer first aid to the Child.

Because of the RECE’s conduct, the Child suffered second degree burns on their hand and needed medical attention, and the Centre issued a Last Chance Agreement to the RECE.

The RECE and the College also agree that

• The Centre's policies say that staff are required to know the procedures about Emergency Preparedness Procedures, Fire Safety Procedures and Health and Safety Guidelines. The policies also require staff to be as candid as possible, openly and freely sharing information.
• If the RECE were to testify, she would advise that she regrets causing injury to the Child and failing to provide adequate first aid in a timely manner.

Findings of guilt

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

The Prosecutor added that they believe

• The RECE failed to adequately supervise the Child by serving them a hot cup of milk without checking the temperature first. The RECE’s failure led to the Child’s serious injury when they put their hand into the cup.
• The RECE failed to immediately administer proper first aid to the Child.
• The RECE breached the College’s Standards of Practice by
  • exposing a young child to a harmful or unsafe situation, which wouldn’t have happened had the Member adequately supervised the Child based on their age, development and the environment.
  • failing to know, understand and abide by legislation, policies and procedures relevant to the profession, as shown by her conduct, including how she responded after realizing the Child had been injured.
  • engaging in conduct that reflects negatively on her and on the profession as a whole.
• The RECE’s conduct was a serious disregard of her professional obligations. It is unbecoming of a member of the profession.

Consequences for the RECE

The RECE and the Prosecutor 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 8 months
• Terms, conditions and limitations on the RECE’s certificate of registration, including 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 of the case.

The facts that suggested more consequences were needed (also known as aggravating factors) were

• The Child was 16 months old and needed vigilant, developmentally-appropriate supervision. Young children also cannot accurately report when a situation compromises their health and well-being.
• Because the RECE didn’t check the milk’s temperature before serving it, the Child sustained 2nd degree burns on their hand. They were in significant pain and needed medical attention.
• The RECE didn’t immediately administer proper first aid to the Child when she realized they were injured and instead tried to console them.
• The RECE’s conduct reflects negatively on the profession. Conduct that causes injury to a young and vulnerable child and the failure to provide adequate and timely first aid in the event of an injury erode the trust that families and the public put in RECEs.

The facts that suggested less consequences were needed (also known as mitigating factors) were

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

Another consideration was that this was a single incident.

Third, they believe that the proposed consequences are in line with past cases decided by the Discipline Committee. They shared 3 past cases where a child was injured or needed medical care because an RECE didn’t supervise them properly. The cases are also attached to this report.

The report described these cases,⁵ which involve failures to supervise that led to young children experiencing harms that required medical intervention. The final orders included similar consequences to those proposed in this case.

Why we adopted 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, both the RECE and the Prosecutor (acting on behalf of the College) agreed on the Proposed Resolution. 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.

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.

The panel felt that the RECE did not think about the steps needed to ensure the Child’s safety when using a microwave to heat milk for such a young child. The RECE should have known to check the temperature of the milk before giving it to the Child. Microwaves aren’t usually used to warm milk in child care programs because of this risk, and if they are staff should be aware of how to use them appropriately to prevent injury to children. It’s not enough to check the temperature of a cup; an RECE has to check the temperature of the contents carefully also.

The panel was deeply concerned that the RECE did not take action when the Child showed through their crying that they were hurt. The RECE should have been able to react quickly by applying first aid based on her training. While the RECE seemed to panic and tried to comfort the Child, she should have focused on why the Child was crying to be able to address the underlying injury right away. That is what RECEs are trained and expected to do in working with young, vulnerable children.

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 maintain public confidence in RECEs for the reasons included in the report.

While this was a single incident, this was a serious incident that led to direct harm to the Child. The consequences will help the RECE remediate her practice to prevent similar issues from happening again, and this decision will help other RECEs understand the seriousness of this type of failure to supervise. The proposed consequences are also similar to the consequences that were ordered in past cases.

Our final Order is attached to this decision.

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

March 16, 2026

Peeter Põldre, Chair

Date

Discipline Committee of the College of Early Childhood Educators

In the case of VINEETHA SUSAN ZACHARIAH, Registration #168687

Panel:

Peeter Põldre, Chair Rick Nankissoor, RECE Barbara Brown, RECE

ORDER

The College of Early Childhood Educators and Vineetha Susan Zachariah (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. 8 months; or

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

   Mentorship

   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 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 of Professional Regulation (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.

   b. 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 Costs, and

   iv. the Panel’s Decision and Reasons.

   c. 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. strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring, and

   v. 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)).

   d. 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.

   e. 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(b),

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

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

   f. 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

   g. 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.

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

March 16, 2026

Peeter Põldre, Chair

Date

Footnotes

1. 1See 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.
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. 5CECE v. Maria Muchaneta Mushore, 2025 ONCECE 23, CECE v. Morgan McGlashan, 2025 ONCECE 4, and CECE v. Amanda Grace Patterson, 2023 ONCECE 7