A teacher with the Thames Valley District School Board has been suspended for four months by the Ontario College of Teachers after being found guilty of professional misconduct in two separate incidents involving nonconsensual sexual touching of a colleague and a member of the public. Jagminder Singh Rai received the suspension, along with a formal reprimand and a requirement to complete coursework on boundaries and ethics, following an April 15, 2025, hearing before the College’s Discipline Committee.
In the case of Ontario College of Teachers v Rai, 2025 ONOCT 26 (CanLII), the committee heard uncontested facts detailing the two events which occurred outside of school hours. The first incident took place in the early morning hours of June 25, 2016, following an end of year party for staff at the school where Mr. Rai taught. Mr. Rai, a female colleague identified as Person A, and other staff members had attended a house party and later rented a limousine to travel to a bar. According to the agreed facts, both Mr. Rai and Person A consumed large amounts of alcohol during the evening. On the limousine ride home from the bar, Person A was lying down on the back seat with her eyes closed. Mr. Rai was sitting alone in the back with her. Concerned, two of Person A’s female colleagues asked another male colleague to bring Mr. Rai to the front of the vehicle, which he did.
Eventually, Mr. Rai and Person A were the last two passengers remaining in the limousine. Person A woke up to find Mr. Rai touching her breasts and vagina over her clothing. She immediately sat up and used her hands to stop him. The following morning, a distraught Person A told several colleagues what had happened. When two of them confronted Mr. Rai about the incident, he stated that he did not recall anything happening with Person A.
The second incident occurred over two years later, on August 13, 2018. Mr. Rai was at a pub with his baseball team. A woman identified as Person B was working as a server that evening and had met Mr. Rai before, as he was a regular patron. After her shift, Person B joined Mr. Rai, some of his teammates, and other waitresses at a different bar. At the end of the night, Person B called a taxi but had a long wait outside the bar. Mr. Rai offered her a ride home, which she accepted.
After dropping off a friend, Mr. Rai drove Person B to her apartment. He then asked if he could come inside to use her washroom, have a drink, and watch a movie they had discussed earlier. Person B was hesitant but agreed, telling him he would have to leave after the movie because she was tired. Inside, she poured them both a drink and sat on the couch to watch the film. Mr. Rai sat down very close to her, their legs touching. When she moved away, he reportedly said, “That’s rude. I don’t bite,” and moved closer again.
Mr. Rai then began to massage Person B’s neck, shoulders, and back. Uncomfortable, she asked him to stop, joking that she was sweaty from work. He continued the massage for a time before stopping. Feeling uneasy as Mr. Rai stared at her instead of watching the movie, Person B messaged a friend and tried to signal it was time for him to leave by saying she was tired. She then pretended to fall asleep in an attempt to get him to go. Instead, Mr. Rai moved closer, whispered her name, and put his hand up her skirt, touching her thigh.
Startled, Person B jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Rai she was going to bed and that he needed to leave. He stood up and suggested giving her a “proper massage” in her bedroom to help her sleep. She refused, stating she did not want to be touched. As she walked him to her apartment door, he attempted to enter her bedroom. She told him she did not want to have sex with him and that he was scaring her. He apologized, said he “didn’t mean to be like that,” and asked for a hug, which she agreed to on the understanding he would leave immediately after. During the hug, he kissed her, tried to put his tongue in her mouth, and rubbed his erect penis against her pelvic area. He then left the apartment.
Following the incident with Person B, the Thames Valley District School Board placed Mr. Rai on a paid leave of absence on September 14, 2018. After this, on November 6, 2018, Person A came forward to the board to report the 2016 limousine incident. The board launched a third party investigation into Person A’s complaint and concluded Mr. Rai had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. The board issued a 30 day unpaid suspension, transferred him to another school, and required him to complete a boundaries course. Mr. Rai later filed a grievance, and the suspension was reduced to 5.34 unpaid days.
At his discipline hearing, Mr. Rai entered a plea of no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, specifically that his actions were disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, and that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member. A no contest plea is not an admission of the facts but an agreement that the committee can accept them as correct for the purpose of the hearing.
The discipline panel found that Mr. Rai’s nonconsensual sexual touching of a colleague and a member of the public constituted a significant moral and professional failing. They noted that even when off duty, teachers must conduct themselves in a way that does not bring the profession into disrepute. The panel accepted a joint penalty submission from counsel for the College and Mr. Rai. The penalty includes a formal reprimand, a four month suspension of his teaching certificate commencing April 30, 2025, and a requirement to complete, at his own expense, a course on sexual harassment, professional ethics, and appropriate boundaries. The panel noted that aggravating factors included that there were two separate incidents and that one victim was a professional colleague. His clean prior disciplinary record was considered, but the panel stated his no contest plea did not carry the same weight as a guilty plea in demonstrating remorse or insight.
