Canada's New Tort of Intimate Partner Violence: A Family Lawyer's Guide to Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia
On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, a decision that fundamentally changes how survivors of abusive relationships can seek justice in court. For the first time, the Court has recognized a distinct tort of intimate partner violence, rooted in the concept of coercive control.
If you are reading this because of something happening in your own relationship, or in the life of someone you love, please know this: what you have experienced is real, it is serious, and the law in Canada now has a path for you to be compensated. This post is intended to explain what the Supreme Court has done, in plain language, and what it might mean for you. It is not legal advice, as every situation is different, but understanding your options is often the first step toward reclaiming them.
What Is a "Tort," and Why Does This One Matter?
A tort is a civil wrong. Unlike criminal charges, which are brought by the Crown, a tort claim is a lawsuit by one person against another for financial compensation.
Until Ahluwalia, survivors of intimate partner abuse who wanted to sue had to squeeze their experience into claims for battery (unwanted physical contact), assault, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court has now held, by a clear majority, that these existing torts simply do not capture the full nature of intimate partner violence.
As Justice Kasirer wrote for the majority, intimate partner violence is "a pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law." It is not confined to physical or psychological injury. It includes the full pattern of abusive conduct by which one partner coerces and controls the other, depriving them of their autonomy — through isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation.
The Case Behind the Decision
Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia were married for 16 years. The trial judge found that throughout the entire marriage, Mr. Ahluwalia engaged in a sustained pattern of abuse that included physical assaults, humiliation, intimidation, isolation from family members, sexual mistreatment as a pressure tactic, and financial control. The Court described it as conduct designed "to break her will and condition her to obey him from the beginning of their marriage."
When Mr. Ahluwalia initiated divorce proceedings, his wife asked the court not only for the usual family law remedies (support, property equalization, sale of the matrimonial home) but also for tort damages for the years of abuse. The trial judge awarded her $50,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages — and crafted a new "tort of family violence" to support the award.
The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed striking down the new tort. But then, the Supreme Court of Canada, on May 15, 2026, created something neither lower court had: a tort specifically tailored to intimate partner violence.
The Three Elements of the New Tort
The majority of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Kasirer, Martin, O'Bonsawin, and Moreau) set out a clear three-part test. A plaintiff must establish:
1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath.
The Court defined "intimate partnership" broadly. It is not limited to married couples, those who lived together, or those who had sexual relationships. What matters is whether the relationship was one of "close personal connection, sustained over a period of time, and marked by mutual interdependence, care or commitment, and the presence of domestic, emotional, financial or physical intimacy." Importantly, the tort also captures conduct that continues after the relationship has ended.
2. The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct.
This is a lower bar than many people might assume. The plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant subjectively intended to control them, only that the defendant intended to do the acts themselves. The intent to dominate is inferred from the pattern, viewed objectively.
3. The conduct, viewed objectively, constituted coercive control.
This is the heart of the new tort. The court asks whether a reasonable person, fully aware of the context of the relationship, would see the defendant's acts, considered cumulatively, as an assertion of control that deprived the plaintiff of their dignity, autonomy, and equality.
One of the most significant features of the new tort is that the plaintiff does not need to prove consequential harm separately. Once the wrongful conduct is established, the harm, the loss of autonomy, dignity, and equality, is treated as flowing from it. This is a meaningful departure from the existing torts, which often required survivors to prove a visible and provable psychological illness in order to recover.
What Counts as Coercive Control?
The Court provided a detailed (though non-exhaustive) list of conduct capable of amounting to coercive control:
Physical and sexual violence
Emotional and psychological abuse, including verbal abuse
Harassment, humiliation, and denigration
Financial control
Stalking and surveillance
Behaviour that isolates a partner from family, friends, or community
Denying a partner access to education, employment, or recreational opportunities
Litigation abuse — using court proceedings as a tool of harassment
Threatening conduct, including threats to harm or take the children
Threats of suicide used to manipulate or control
This list is itself a meaningful expansion of how Canadian courts can recognize abuse. The inclusion of litigation abuse in particular will be familiar to many family lawyers — and to many survivors who have experienced the family court system being weaponized against them.
What the Court Was Careful To Exclude
The Supreme Court was clear that not every difficult or unhealthy relationship constitutes intimate partner violence. The decision specifically draws lines.
The new tort does not capture:
Mere dysfunction in a partnership
"Hurtful and sometimes vengeful behaviour that can be part of high-conflict disputes"
Dishonesty, infidelity, or emotional neglect on their own
Imbalance in a relationship without coercive control
The Court was also conscious of a real risk: that the new tort could be misused against the very people it is designed to protect. Justice Kasirer warned that courts "must take care not to mischaracterize a victim's resistance to a partner's attempt at domination" as coercive control. An overinclusive tort, he wrote, could expose survivors to retaliatory claims and discourage them from coming forward in the first place.
This is an important nuance. The new tort is a tool for survivors, but it is one that courts will need to apply with care.
The Dissent: Justices Côté, Rowe, and Jamal
Three justices dissented, in reasons written by Justice Jamal. They agreed that intimate partner violence is "an epidemic" deserving a compassionate and principled response from the justice system. But they did not think this case was the right vehicle to create a new tort. In their view, the existing torts (e.g. battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) had already provided Ms. Ahluwalia with full compensation, and judicial restraint counselled against recognizing a new cause of action when one was not strictly necessary on the facts.
The dissenting justices also raised concerns that the new tort, especially as framed by the majority, could create evidentiary and procedural complications for plaintiffs going forward.
Notwithstanding the dissent, the majority view is now the law of Canada.
What This Means for Survivors and for Family Law
For those of us who practise family law, Ahluwalia is a meaningful and immediate development.
Tort claims can be advanced alongside family law proceedings. A survivor going through separation or divorce can now also pursue a tort claim for the abuse experienced during the relationship, without having to retrofit their experience into older torts.
Coercive control is now formally a compensable wrong. Conduct that family lawyers have long understood to be deeply harmful, financial control, isolation, monitoring, threats involving children, is now expressly recognized by the highest court in Canada as actionable.
Survivors do not need a criminal conviction. Civil claims are decided on the balance of probabilities, a lower standard than the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. Many survivors whose abusers were never charged, or who chose not to pursue criminal proceedings, may still have a viable civil claim.
No separate proof of psychological illness is required. This is one of the most important practical shifts. Survivors no longer need to demonstrate a "visible and provable illness" in order to recover for the harm of coercive control itself.
Damages may be substantial. In Ahluwalia, the damages were settled at $100,000 between the parties. The Supreme Court re-characterized those damages as falling fully within general compensatory damages under the new tort, rather than split between compensatory and aggravated heads. As more cases work through the courts, damages for the new tort are likely to grow as the law develops.
The decision applies across Canada.Ahluwalia originated in Ontario, but it is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It is binding in every province and territory.
Practical Considerations If You Are Thinking About a Claim
Each situation is unique, and the points below are general, but they may be useful starting points.
Documentation matters. Notes, journals, text messages, emails, financial records, photographs, medical records, and statements you may have made to friends, counsellors, or professionals can all become evidence later. If it is safe to keep records, doing so quietly and securely can be valuable.
Limitation periods apply. Civil claims must generally be brought within set time frames. These vary by province and by the nature of the claim. Speaking with a lawyer sooner rather than later helps preserve your options.
Safety comes first. A civil claim is one tool, but it is rarely the most urgent one. Protection orders, criminal proceedings, and safety planning often take priority. A good family lawyer will help you understand the full picture, not just one piece of it.
Privacy is possible. Publication bans, the use of initials, and other procedural protections may be available depending on your jurisdiction and circumstances.
You will not be judged. Many survivors carry shame about the things they were unable to do, the times they returned, or the things they "let happen." Those feelings are understandable — and they are also, almost universally, products of the very dynamic that the Supreme Court has now recognized in law. You deserve to talk to a lawyer who understands that.
We Are Here to Help
At Recovery Family Law, we know that calling a family lawyer can be one of the hardest steps a person ever takes. We approach every conversation with care, confidentiality, and respect. Whether you are at the very beginning of figuring out your options, or you have been thinking about this for a long time, we are here to help you understand what the law now offers and what next steps might make sense for your situation.
The Supreme Court's decision in Ahluwalia is a meaningful shift in Canadian law. It reflects something that survivors have always known: that abuse is more than the sum of its incidents, and that the harm it causes is worthy of being named, seen, and remedied.
If you would like to speak confidentially with one of our family lawyers about how this decision might affect you or someone you love, please contact us at 604-584-0007 or info@recoveryfamilylaw.ca, or visit our office at Unit 9, 15243 91st Avenue, Surrey, B.C.. Initial consultations are free and by appointment only.
If You Are in Immediate Danger
If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, please call 911.
For confidential support, you can also reach out to:
VictimLinkBC (British Columbia): 1-800-563-0808 (24/7, multilingual)
Options B.C. (domestic violence intervention program): 604-596-4321
Ishtar Women’s Resource Society: 604-534-1011