Notice of Publication Ban
In the matter of College of Early Childhood Educators and Evagelia Athanasopoulou, 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 EVAGELIA ATHANASOPOULOU, Registration #104472
Panel
Peeter Põldre, Chair Amanda Barg, RECE Barbara Brown, RECE
Meeting date:
April 20, 2026
Decision and reasons
Evagelia Athanasopoulou (“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 Evagelia Athanasopoulou (“the RECE”) is guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to adequately supervise a child and breaching of the standards of practice in several ways. 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
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 case management Facilitator assigned to this case decided not to schedule any Case Management meetings but offered to hold a Case Conference to Plan for Finalization in writing if the RECE and the Prosecutor wanted to use the Discipline Resolution Process to finalize this case. The Facilitator felt this could streamline the case’s process without compromising fairness because the RECE had a legal representative who could give advice about her rights and options in the discipline process.
After receiving a Proposed Resolution from the RECE and the Prosecutor, the Facilitator held a Case Conference to Plan for Finalization in writing and prepared 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 December 13, 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 (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
o Failing to observe and monitor the learning environment and take responsibility to avoid exposing children to harmful or unsafe situations
o Failing to provide safe and appropriate supervision of children based on age, development and environment
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 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 agree on the following facts that support the RECE’s guilt in this case. These facts include details of both the RECE’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances and events.
The RECE has been registered in good standing with the College since October 2019 and has no prior discipline history. During the incidents described below, she was employed as an RECE at Holy Trinity Early Childhood Learning Centre (the “Centre”), which operates in Holy Trinity Catholic School (the “School”) in Sarnia.
On May 16, 2023, the RECE, L.V.T. (another RECE), and A.C., (an education assistant, the “EA”) were supervising a group of 9 preschool-aged children in the Centre’s playground. Before taking two children inside to use the washroom, L.V.T. did a headcount and communicated to the RECE and the EA that all of the children were present.
Shortly after L.V.T. went inside, the RECE and the EA failed to notice that two 3-year-old children (the “Children”) left through the playground gate alone and unsupervised and walked through the School’s parking lot. A member of the public noticed the Children at the corner of a busy intersection, called 911 and returned the Children to the School. The RECE and the EA did not realize that the Children had left the playground until they were returned. The Children were unsupervised for about 10 to 15 minutes.
This happened during the afternoon pick-up time, when the unlocked playground gate was frequently opened and closed by parents. It is not known if the gate had been left open by a parent or if the Children opened the gate themselves.
If the RECE were to testify, she would say that the Children were trying to open the gate after L.V.T. went inside, and the RECE told them to move away and that the gate needed to stay closed. At the same time, the EA was the designated supervisor on the playground for a non-speaking Autistic child who needed enhanced supervision, and the EA had asked for the RECE’s support as they were experiencing some challenges with that child. The Children probably left the playground while the RECE was focusing on this other child.
[T]he Centre implemented changes after the incident, including “better positioning of educators so as to have full visibility at all times” and “updating of the lock system on the gates with bungee cords and screw-carabiners”. The Centre also gave the RECE a written warning, though it hadn’t had concerns about her supervision practices before the incident.
The RECE and the College also agreed about the following facts:
The College is not aware of any injuries or emotional impact to the Children because of the incident.
If the RECE were to testify, she would also say that she is remorseful and has “learned a lot” since the incident. She has implemented new strategies in her daily practice to prevent another incident from occurring.
Findings of guilt
The RECE and the Prosecutor agree that the RECE is guilty of all of the accusations listed above.
The Prosecutor said that the RECE failed to adequately supervise the Children, which led to them leaving the playground alone for 10-15 minutes. Both the RECE and the EA had a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of the 7 children on the playground, and the RECE had an individual professional obligation to continuously monitor the playground and to ensure no child left the playground alone and unsupervised regardless of what the EA did or didn’t do.
The RECE’s conduct exposed the Children to risk of harm and breached the Standards of the Profession. She did not adequately observe and monitor the playground or provide safe and appropriate supervision to the Children based on their age, development and the environment. The RECE also did not realize that the Children left the playground until they were returned by a member of the public. This shows that she failed to know, understand and abide by legislation, policies and procedures relevant to the profession and failed to model professional values and behaviours. The RECE’s conduct was a serious disregard of her professional obligations that reflects negatively on her and 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 6 months
Terms, conditions and limitations of the RECE’s certificate of registration, including mentorship
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’s practice 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 Children were only 3 years old.
The Children were unsupervised for a significant period of time.
The Children were exposed to road-related risks while they were unsupervised.
The RECE did not notice that the Children were missing.
The RECE was aware that the unlocked playground gate was frequently opened and closed by parents at that time of day. This should have increased her vigilance and awareness for how to position herself to monitor the gate, particularly after she noticed that the Children were trying to open the gate.
The RECE’s conduct is serious enough to reflect negatively on the profession and erode the trust parents and families put in RECEs.
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:
There is no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the Children.
The Centre made changes since the incident, including “better positioning of educators so as to have full visibility at all times” and “updating of the lock system on the gates with bungee cords and screw-carabiners”.
The Centre had no previous concerns with the Member’s supervision practices.
The Children likely left the playground when the Member responded to the EA’s request for support with another child.
Third, they believe that the proposed consequences are in line with past cases decided by the Discipline Committee and are aligned with the public interest. They shared three past cases, which are attached to this report.
The report described the three past cases included in the Proposed Resolution.5 In each of these cases, an RECE failed to notice when one or two children went missing from a group they were supervising. In two of the cases, the children were missing for 4-9 minutes, and in the third, they were gone for 15-20 minutes. The final orders included similar consequences to those proposed in this case, including suspensions ranging from 6-7 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.
The RECE’s failure to monitor and secure the gate was a particularly troubling fact in this case. She knew that children could open the gate themselves. She knew that the gate could be a problem because parents were coming and going at this time of day. And she knew that the Children had been playing with it before they exited. She should have positioned herself in front of or close to the gate to be able to monitor and secure it. Had she done this, the Children would not have exited and would not have been unsupervised.
It is important to look carefully at environmental factors when supervising children and in setting policies and protocols. For example, allowing parents to come and go through the gate while children are outside increases risk. Having parents stop at the gate facilitates better supervision of the children and better controls access to the children. We also noticed that the bungee-cord-and-carabiners solution after this incident was not ideal because those parts can be lost, be removed, or get worn out. We expect RECEs to advocate for measures that are permanent and meet safety standards.
In this case, ratios were not a factor. When the incident happened, there were 2 adults outside with 7 children. For 3-year-olds, the required ratio is 1 adult to 8 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.
We appreciate that the consequences proposed by the RECE and the Prosecutor include mentorship. This gives the RECE an opportunity to reflect on the specific situations that come up in practice and to improve her practices going forward. These include both supervision issues, like the one that happened in this case and others, and the importance of being a strong advocate for good, safe practice in your workplace.
Fortunately, this incident did not end tragically. However, the RECE must appreciate that even a momentary lapse in supervision can lead to serious consequences for children.
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 28, 2026
Peeter Põldre, Chair
Date
Discipline Committee of the
College of Early Childhood Educators
In the case of EVAGELIA ATHANASOPOULOU, Registration #104472
Panel:
Peeter Põldre, Chair Amanda Barg, RECE Barbara Brown, RECE
ORDER
The College of Early Childhood Educators and Evagelia Athanasopoulou (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(b) and 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 20, 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. Navneet Kaur (132532), 2023 ONCECE 21, CECE v. Asha Abdullahi Elmi, 2022 ONCECE 7, and CECE v. Natalia Catalina Gomez, 2022 ONCECE 17