Ontario College of Teachers v. Rai, 2025 ONOCT 26

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Rai 2025 ONOCT 26

Date: 2025-04-17

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Jagminder Singh Rai, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JAGMINDER SINGH RAI (REGISTRATION #461184)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair Adam Lee, OCT Brian Serafini, OCT

HEARD: April 15, 2025

Danielle Miller and Lauren Weaver, for the Ontario College of Teachers Parmbil Gill, for Jagminder Singh Rai Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on April 15, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Jagminder Singh Rai (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 18, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jagminder Singh Rai is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);¹

(b) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);²

(c) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

(d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Jagminder Singh Rai is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”).

3. At all material times, Person A was a female teacher at the School.

4. At all material times, Person B was an adult female member of the public.

Inappropriate Conduct with Person A

5. On or about June 24 and into the early morning hours of June 25, 2016, the Member, Person A, and other School staff attended a house party to celebrate the end of the school year. Some of the staff members rented a limousine to take them from the party to a bar, and back to their respective homes at the end of the night.

6. The Member and Person A both consumed large amounts of alcohol throughout the evening.

7. Some time after 1am, the limousine drove some of the staff members home from the bar. During the ride home, the other passengers were in the front of the limousine, but Person A was lying down on the back seat with her eyes closed. The Member was sitting alone in the back with her. Two of Person A’s female colleagues asked their male colleague to get the Member and bring him to the front of the limousine, away from Person A, which he did.

8. Passengers were dropped off as they reached their respective homes. Person A and the Member were the last two passengers in the limousine.

9. Person A woke up in the back to find the Member touching her breasts and vagina over her clothing. She sat up and used her hands to stop him from continuing to touch her.

10. The following morning, Person A told a number of her colleagues about the Member’s inappropriate conduct with her the night before.

11. Two of Person A’s colleagues confronted the Member about what had happened with Person A. The Member indicated that he did not recall anything happening with Person A.

Inappropriate Conduct with Person B

12. On or about August 13, 2018, the Member, along with members of his baseball team, attended at a pub where the Member was a regular patron. Person B was working as a server at the pub that evening, and had met the Member before.

13. When Person B finished work, she went to another bar with the Member, some members of his baseball team, and some other waitresses, where they had drinks together and socialized.

14. At the end of the evening, Person B called a taxi to take her home. She waited outside the back entrance of the bar for a long time for her taxi to arrive, at which point, the Member offered her a ride home, as he was driving his friend anyway. Person B was tired and accepted the ride.

15. The Member dropped his friend off and then drove Person B to her apartment. Once there, the Member asked if he could come up to use the washroom, have a drink and watch a movie they had been discussing earlier in the evening. Person B was hesitant, but then agreed, explaining that after the movie he needed to go home as she was tired.

16. Person B poured a drink for the Member and herself, and then sat down on the couch to watch the movie. The Member sat down beside her, close enough that their legs were touching.

17. According to Person B, when she moved away, the Member said, “That’s “rude. I don’t bite” and moved closer to her. Person B moved away again and angled her body away from his towards the television.

18. The Member then began to massage Person B’s neck, shoulders, and back. Person B was uncomfortable with the massage. She asked him to stop, joking that she was sweaty and gross from having worked all day. The Member continued to massage her, but eventually stopped.

19. When the Member stopped, Person B messaged her friend about what was happening. She noticed that the Member was not watching the movie, but staring at her. It made her very uncomfortable. Person B wanted the Member to leave, so she expressed how tired she was.

20. In an attempt to get the Member to leave, Person B pretended she was falling asleep. Instead, the Member moved closer to her, whispered her name and put his hand up her skirt, touching her thigh.

21. As a result of the Member’s touch, Person B jumped up from the couch and told the Member she wanted to go to bed and that it was time for him to leave. The Member stood up as well, but suggested that he give her a proper massage in her bedroom to help her sleep. Person B told the Member that she did not want to be touched.

22. The Member followed Person B to her apartment door, but attempted to go into her bedroom. She told the Member she did not want to have sex with him and that he was scaring her. The Member reassured her that he did not want to sleep with her that night. Person B said, “Not ever” and became emotional.

23. According to Person B, the Member apologized and told her that he “didn’t mean to be like that” and asked Person B if he could give her a hug. Person B agreed on the understanding that if she gave the Member a hug, he would leave.

24. While standing in the small entryway of Person B’s apartment, the Member gave Person B a hug and kissed her. He tried to put his tongue in her mouth and rubbed his erect penis against her pelvic area. The Member then left Person B’s apartment.

Board Investigation

25. On September 14, 2018, the Member was placed on a paid leave of absence in relation to the allegations with respect to Person B.

26. On November 6, 2018, Person A reported the incident with the Member to the Board. The Board hired a consulting firm to conduct an independent third party investigation. The investigator interviewed the Member, Person A, and other staff who attended the event. On the basis of the investigation, the Board concluded that the Member engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with Person A.

27. The Member was issued a 30-day unpaid suspension by the Board, administratively transferred to another school and required to complete a Boundaries Course before returning to work.

28. The suspension was subsequently reduced to 5.34 unpaid days after the Member filed a grievance.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

29. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

30. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

31. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is entering this plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

32. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in this or any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

33. In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(14) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations was being sought because the Member’s conduct did not involve students, nor did it take place within a school environment, therefore his conduct is more appropriately captured by subsections 1(18) and 1(19). The Panel granted these requests.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 15, 2025 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 28 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in nonconsensual touching of a sexual nature towards a colleague and a member of the public.

9The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. “Disgraceful” can be characterized as conduct that cast serious doubt on a member’s moral fitness and ability to discharge their professional obligations. “Dishonourable” conduct is behaviour that a member knew or ought to have know was unacceptable. “Unprofessional” conduct is a serious disregard for their professional obligations and a lack of good judgment. The Member touched Person A, a colleague, in a sexual manner without her consent. This occurred while the Member and his colleagues attended a school year-end celebration but did not occur in the school environment. Regardless of where the Member’s conduct occurred, members of the profession are expected to act professionally and always maintain safe and collegial relationships with colleagues. The Member also engaged in unwanted touching of a sexual nature with Person B, a member of the public. His conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failing.

10Further, the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Even when members of the profession are off duty, they must still conduct themselves in ways which do not put the teaching profession into disrepute. The Member failed to do so by engaging in unwanted touching of a sexual nature with a colleague and with a member of the public. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when a member engages in such inappropriate behaviour that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY Decision

11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 15, 2025, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four (4) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding sexual harassment, professional ethics, and appropriate boundaries with colleagues, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

12The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.³ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2; Ontario College of Teachers v. Yeoman, 2022 ONOCT 54; Ontario College of Teachers v. Elken, 2021 ONOCT 120; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bhalla, 2020 ONOCT 206.

13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following: 1) the Member’s unwanted touching of a sexual nature involved more than one person and two separate incidents; and 2) Person A was the Member’s colleague and his behaviour would reasonably have an impact on her personal and professional life. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and this is his first finding of professional misconduct with the Discipline Committee. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

14Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member’s plea of no contest demonstrates accountability, in that he is accepting that a finding of professional misconduct can be made against him. Member’s Counsel acknowledged that the Panel cannot infer remorse, as would be the case with a guilty plea. He maintained, nevertheless, that a plea of no contest can be considered as a mitigating factor because it demonstrates meaningful accountability.

15The Panel notes that there is a difference between a plea of no contest and a guilty plea. A guilty plea amounts to an admission of guilt and can be accepted as a sign of remorse or insight, which is often recognized as a mitigating factor. However, with a plea of no contest, there is not the same level of remorse or insight. The Panel acknowledges that there is some degree of accountability demonstrated, in that the Member has participated in the hearing process and has cooperated. However, this does not equate to the same level of remorse or insight as a guilty plea. Rule 3.02 of the Rules outlines what a member consents to when entering a plea of no contest: namely, that the Committee can accept as correct the facts alleged against the member for the purpose of this proceeding only, that the Committee can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct and can make a finding without a hearing. Although, it is not an admission by the Member that he engaged in the conduct. Therefore, the Panel does not consider the Member’s expression of accountability through his plea of no contest to be a mitigating factor.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s unwanted touching of a sexual nature towards his colleague and towards a member of the public, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to maintain professional boundaries with their colleagues and are also expected to model appropriate behaviour in the community, which the Member failed to do so by his misconduct. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on April 30, 2025, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

18The Panel finds that the courses of instruction regarding sexual harassment, professional ethics, and appropriate boundaries with colleagues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues and members of the public.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.