On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence in the much-anticipated reasons for judgment of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia [1]. It is only the second time in recent memory that Canada’s highest court has recognized a new tort, and the implications for survivors are significant.
The new tort is designed to recognize the gap in the law, namely where coercive control as a distinct manifestation of intimate partner violence is not acknowledged as a wrong and where aggravated damages cannot address such wrong. [2] The new tort is utilized to provide redress for the coercive and controlling violence that survivors, such as Ms. Ahluwalia, have suffered. [3]
For our clients who have experienced abuse from a partner or former partner, this decision opens a clearer path to accountability, validation, and compensation.
The Case Behind the Decision
Kuldeep Ahluwalia married her husband, Amrit, in India in 1999. After moving to Canada in the early 2000s, Ms. Ahluwalia was victim to physical assault, humiliation, intimidation, and conduct intending to inflict emotional distress at the hands of her husband over the next 16 years. She was isolated from family members, pressured into sexual acts, and subjected to financial control. Mr. Ahluwalia obliged her to be a stay-at-home mother rather than work outside the home, refused to allow her to upgrade her education in Canada, controlled all family finances, and when she did work, took control of all her salary.
Procedural History
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
In 2016, Mr. Ahluwalia brought an application for divorce in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [4]. In her application response, Ms. Ahluwalia agreed a divorce should be pronounced between the parties and made allegations of regular verbal, mental, and physical abuse by Mr. Ahluwalia during their marriage.
In 2021, Ms. Ahluwalia amended her application response to seek “general, exemplary and punitive damages for the physical and mental abuse suffered by [Ms. Ahluwalia] at the hands of [Mr. Ahluwalia]”. Mr. Ahluwalia denied the foundation for the new claim in damages on the basis that the claim was statute-barred and lacked causation.
An 11-day trial was held in the early months of 2022. The trial judge described the marriage as not only unhappy or dysfunctional, but also violent and a “16-year pattern of coercion and control” [5]. The trial judge found that “behind the shield of intimacy, [Mr. Ahluwalia] imposed a conception of marriage on Ms. Ahluwalia where the husband and wife were one, and that one was Mr. Ahluwalia”. [6] In other words, Mr. Ahluwalia engaged in conduct that coerced and controlled his wife in order to break her will and condition her to obey him from the beginning of their marriage.
The trial judge rejected the argument that the claim for damages was statute-barred on the basis that no limitation period applied due to the nature of the claim [7] and held it was appropriate to recognize a new common law tort of family violence.
Ms. Ahluwalia was subsequently awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for what the trial judge characterized as the novel tort of family violence to bring some degree of accountability to Mr. Ahluwalia’s conduct.
Court of Appeal
Mr. Ahluwalia appealed the Superior Court’s [8] decision on the basis that established torts already exist to provide an adequate remedy for the subject matter at issue. Mr. Ahluwalia further argued that the trial judge “invented the occasion” to create a new tort in a manner that was procedurally unfair and unsupported by argument.
The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Ahluwalia’s appeal in part. The damage award was reduced by the amount awarded for punitive damages ($50,000) and tort damages were awarded to Ms. Ahluwalia, but not on the basis of the tort of family violence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had been wrong to create a new tort [9] as remedies already existed and the facts fell squarely within the existing jurisprudence on battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress [10].
Supreme Court of Canada
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of whether the trial judge was correct to recognize a new tort of family violence as the basis for liability or whether, as the Court of Appeal decided, the existing intentional torts of battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress were adequate to redress the harm. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 11 and 12, 2025.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in addressing the seriousness of the subject matter, affirmed that intimate partner violence is a pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law. Not only does it cause physical and/or emotional harm, but it constitutes a fundamental breach of the trust intrinsic to intimate relationships.
In its reasons for judgment, the Court explicitly distinguishes the new tort from the already existing torts. In differentiating the torts, the Court notes that the injuries caused by intimate partner violence are qualitatively different due to the intimate partnership setting. Assault and battery are often episodic and fail to capture the interference of a victim’s autonomy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress is constrained to emotional harm and does not encompass the deprivation of autonomy.
The Court further elaborates on the gendered character of the conduct and notes the pattern of emerging acceptance in the legal authorities of same.
In accepting Ms. Ahluwalia’s claim, the Court states:
[6] Ms. Ahluwalia has made out all three elements of the new tort. She was the victim of a protracted pattern of abusive behaviour that served not just to hurt her psychologically or physically, but to bring her to heel. Mr. Ahluwalia’s coercive conduct included three apparently discrete acts of extreme physical violence. But is also encompassed, as part of the same tort of intimate partner violence, a wide array of more subtle forms of manipulation, not all of which are addressed by existing torts. Taken cumulatively, the whole of this misconduct justifies the principal award of damages under the new tort. Separate claims under existing torts were therefore not necessary because all of Mr. Ahluwalia’s harmful conduct was undertaken to the same coercive effect, to deprive Ms. Ahluwalia of an autonomous and equal voice in decision making in the marriage. Furthermore, he wrongly limited her freedom to live her own life within the intimate partnership – to make choices in relation to her career, her relationship with her family and friends, and the pursuit of her own happiness. Cumulatively, Mr. Ahluwalia’s conduct subordinated Ms. Ahluwalia to his will in a manner that undermined her rights and dignity and autonomy as a person and to equality in the relationship. On the basis of the trial judge’s findings of fact, the entire sum of $100,000 in general and compensatory damages must therefore be awarded for the tort of intimate partner violence, which includes but is not limited to those physical acts of violence and psychological abuse. [11]
What Do I Have to Prove to be Successful in a Claim for Intimate Partner Violence?
Intimate partner violence is centered around coercive control, however, is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury. It can include all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy. This can include egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners. [12]
It is important to note that mere dysfunction of an intimate partnership or a relationship marked by an imbalance between the parties in the absence of coercive control does not meet the burden required, however a single act of violence inflicted by one intimate partner upon the other may be sufficient for the aggressor to lay down the law for the relationship in a manner that serves to control, isolate, or entrap the victim. [13]
To bring a successful claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements, namely:
- The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
- The defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct; and
- The conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.
The harm associated with coercion flows from proof of the wrongful conduct and as such, a plaintiff is not required to prove any consequential harm separately from the above elements.
1. The First Element: The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath
The Supreme Court of Canada does not provide a fixed definition as to what constitutes an intimate partnership, however provides a guide for identifying relationships that may give rise to certain legal wrongs in tort.
The Court goes on to state that an intimate partnership is a relationship 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. It is rooted in conjugality, as opposed to other interpersonal connections, but not defined by sexual relations or existing legal forms such as marriage or cohabitation. [14]
In other words, the intimate partnership is defined by the substantive qualities of the relationship and the fact that it reflects social, financial, and affective interdependence in a manner that is relevant to both partners’ agency, sense of self and personal dignity, as well as material and physical well-being. [15] It is the inherent trust within intimate partnerships that distinguishes it from other relationships and thus, existing torts. [16]
It is important to note that the vulnerability of a partner to coercion and control can extend beyond the formal end of a partnership. The mere fact that the parties have formally separated does not necessarily put an end to the intimate partner violence. [17] For example, in a post-separation period, coercive control may also take hold, and violence in the same or different forms may deprive the vulnerable party of the autonomy that tort law must continue to recognize as a legally protected interest. [18] In addition, co-parenting often continues connections and interdependence between former partners.
2. The Second Element: The defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct
To satisfy the second element, a plaintiff need only show that the defendant intended to engage in the impugned conduct. The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant intended subjectively to exercise coercive control over them through the abuse, nor that the defendant intended to cause a specific type of harm. [19]
3. The Third Element: The conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control
Lastly, a trier of fact must decide whether a reasonable person, fully apprised of the relevant context of the relationship, would have perceived the defendant’s acts, considered cumulatively, as amounting to an assertion of control over the plaintiff that has the effect of depriving them of their dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship.
The threshold for determining this factor will generally be readily met, since a reasonable person would regard abusive conduct as a breach of trust between two equal partners that is incompatible with an intimate partnership. [20]
However, while dishonesty, infidelity, emotional neglect, and disagreements may cause intimacy to break down, these do not necessarily reflect controlling or coercive conduct.
The Supreme Court of Canada provided the following non-exhaustive list of conduct that can constitute 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 others, or that denies a partner access to educational, employment, and recreational opportunities
- Litigation abuse
- Threatening conduct, including threatening to harm the children or take them away, and threatening to commit suicide
Why This Matters
Patterns of abuse now count as a wrong on their own. Survivors have long struggled to translate years of coercive control into legal claims built around individual incidents. The new tort recognizes that the pattern itself — the cumulative effect of being broken down over months or years — is a legally compensable harm, separate from any single act of physical or psychological injury.
No requirement to prove a diagnosable illness. Under existing torts, survivors often have to produce evidence of a “visible and provable” illness to recover damages for harm. Under the new tort of intimate partner violence, harm flows automatically from proof of the wrongful conduct. A survivor need not produce further evidence.
The intimate context is treated as making the harm worse, not lesser. For decades, tort law treated violence between intimate partners as less serious than violence between strangers. The Supreme Court has now explicitly rejected that view, noting that violence committed by an intimate partner is a breach of trust intrinsic to the relationship.
Sexual coercion is addressed directly. The Supreme Court recognizes sexual coercion as conduct that can constitute coercive control. This is important for survivors of abuse that included sexual violence within their intimate relationship — conduct that has historically been minimized or ignored.
What This Means in British Columbia
The Supreme Court’s decision binds every court in Canada, including in British Columbia. For survivors in British Columbia, there are several province-specific points to be aware of:
No limitation period for these claims. Under BC’s Limitation Act, there is no time limit for civil claims arising from sexual misconduct, or from assault and battery where the perpetrator was in an intimate or personal relationship with the survivor, or in a relationship of dependency. The new tort of intimate partner violence should fall squarely within these protections. In practical terms, this means survivors in BC could pursue a claim regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred.
The decision was actively shaped by BC voices. The Attorney General of British Columbia, West Coast LEAF, Rise Women’s Legal Centre, and Battered Women’s Support Services all intervened in the Supreme Court hearing, advocating for survivor-centered recognition of this harm. Their submissions are reflected throughout the Court’s reasoning.
What This Decision Doesn’t Do
This decision does not create a criminal offence or replace the criminal justice system. A civil claim runs separately from any criminal proceeding, and survivors do not need a criminal conviction (or even a police report) to bring a civil claim.
Looking Forward
Ahluwalia validates what survivors have long preached: the harm of being controlled, isolated, and broken down by someone you trusted is real and should be recognized by law.
The decision also signals something broader. The Court built a clear framework for recognizing new torts when existing causes of action fall short — a framework that advocates will continue to use to push the law forward in the years ahead.
[1] Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2025 SCC 15
[2] Ibid at para 16
[3] Ibid at para 16
[4] Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303
[5] Ibid at para 5
[6] 2025 SCC 15 at para 1
[7] 2022 ONCSC 1303 at para 30
[8] Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476
[9] Ibid at para 3
[10] Ibid at para 91
[11] 2026 SCC 15 at para 6
[12] Ibid at para 7
[13] Ibid at para 13
[14] Ibid at para 102
[15] Ibid at para 102
[16] Ibid at para 106
[17] Ibid at para 185
[18] Ibid at para 107
[19] Ibid at para 186
[20] Ibid at para 14
