Notice of Publication Ban
In the matter of College of Early Childhood Educators and Amari Alexis Austin, 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 AMARI ALEXIS AUSTIN, Registration #134001
Panel
Peeter Põldre, Chair
Rick Nankissoor, RECE
Kath Gradwell. RECE
Meeting date:
April 13, 2026
Decision and reasons
Amari Alexis Austin (“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 Amari Alexis Austin (“the RECE”) is guilty of professional misconduct, including breaches of the standards of practice. We ordered a reprimand; a 6-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 of Early Childhood Educators 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 maintain the standards of the profession4. In particular, the RECE is accused of 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 their 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 been registered in good standing with the College since May 2022 and does not have a prior discipline history. During the incident described below, she was employed as an RECE at Pathway Childcare Centre (the “Centre”) in Brampton, Ontario.
On July 20, 2023, the RECE went into the Centre’s storage room and took multiple new, unopened toys home for personal use without permission.
This was captured by the Centre’s video camera. The video also showed that K.O.W., another RECE, also went into the storage room and took new toys without permission.
The Centre contacted police, who spoke with the RECE and K.O.W.
On the evening of July 24, 2023, the RECE and K.O.W. returned toys to the Centre, including 2 dolls, a puzzle, a fossil kit, an apron set and a Lego set. It was not clear whether all of the toys were returned.
The RECE was terminated from her position at the Centre. The Police did not lay charges for this incident.
If the RECE were to testify, she would say that she returned all the toys she took and that she is remorseful and takes full responsibility for her actions.
Findings of guilt
The RECE and the Prosecutor agree that the RECE is guilty of all of the accusations listed above.
The Prosecutor added in the signed Proposed Resolution that the RECE breached the trust of her employer and the public by taking toys home for personal use without permission. Her dishonesty means she failed to model professional values and behaviours and to understand that her conduct reflects on her as a professional and on her profession at all times. The Prosecutor called these significant breaches of the required Standards of Practice and added that this conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable, a serious disregard of her professional obligations, and unbecoming an RECE.
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 6 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 that mean more and/or less serious consequences are needed to protect children and the public.
The facts they said suggested more consequences were needed included that
The RECE breached the Centre’s trust by taking the Centre’s toys home for personal use.
The RECE returned the toys only after police communicated with her.
The RECE lowered the public’s trust in the profession.
The facts they said suggested less consequences were needed included that
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.
The RECE does not have a history of misconduct.
They also considered that
This was a single incident, not a pattern of behaviour.
Four days after taking toys from the Centre, the RECE returned the toys back to the Centre. She says she returned all the toys. It is unclear if she did.
There is no evidence that the Centre suffered a financial loss.
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 2 past cases, which are also attached to this report.
The report described the two past cases included in the Proposed Resolution.5 In the College’s only past discipline case involving an RECE’s theft from their employer, the RECE took home three iPads for personal use without permission. The iPads were returned after being located in the RECE’s house by the police. In the second case, which was an as another example of different professional misconduct, the RECE provided parents false and/or misleading information, failed to document an incident involving a child, and didn’t report it to the centre’s management. The final orders included similar consequences to those proposed in this case, including suspensions ranging from 6-9 months.
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.
Stealing from an employer is a clear breach of the Code of Ethics that are fundamental to the practice of early childhood education. In particular, the RECE’s actions did not show the respect, trust and integrity expected of members of this profession. It reflects poorly on the profession and undermines the public’s confidence and trust in RECEs.
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 maintain public confidence in RECEs for the reasons included in the report.
We noticed that the length of the suspension in this case is the same as the length of the suspension in the past case involving theft by the RECE. We talked about whether the length of suspension should depend on the value of the items stolen and decided that relative value shouldn’t be an important factor in this case. Theft is theft and needs to be taken seriously.
The RECE’s actions concern us greatly, and we expect that these consequences will help the RECE remediate her practices and show other RECEs that this conduct isn’t acceptable. We especially hope that mentorship discussions will focus on the Code of Ethics, including by using other resources published by the College.
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.
April 13, 2026
Peeter Põldre, Chair
Date
Discipline Committee of the
College of Early Childhood Educators
In the case of AMARI ALEXIS AUSTIN, Registration #134001
Panel:
Peeter Põldre, Chair
Rick Nankissoor, RECE
Kath Gradwell. RECE
ORDER
The College of Early Childhood Educators and Amari Alexis Austin (the “Member”) agree and jointly submit that the Discipline Committee make an Order:
Requiring the Member to appear before a Panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded within 60 days from the date of the Order.
Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for a period of
a. 6 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.
- 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
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 5 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.
April 13, 2026
Peeter Põldre, Chair
Date
Footnotes
- See 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.
- Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 7, Sched. 8.
- Professional Misconduct, Ontario Regulation 223/08.
- College of Early Childhood Educators’ Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice
- CECE v. Melanie Ruth Brown, 2021 ONCECE 3 and CECE v. Christopher Bruce Wilson, 2025 ONCECE 7