The recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision overturned the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and created a new tort of Intimate Partner Violence.
In February of 2022, the tort of family violence was created in the decision of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia 2022 ONSC 1303. In her decision, Justice Mandhane ordered that $150,000 be paid in damages for a recurrent pattern of physical, emotional, and financial abuse during their 16-year marriage. The husband then appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In July of 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Justice Mandhane and determined that the new tort of family violence was unnecessary. They found that pre-existing torts, such as assault, battery and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, were adequate to address any damages. This decision was appealed by Ms. Ahluwalia to the SCC.
On May 16, 2026, the SCC overturned the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and reinstated the decision of Justice Mandhane in part.
Mr. Ahluwalia initiated divorce proceedings and Ms. Ahluwalia sought sole decision-making responsibility for their children, child support, spousal support, property equalization and sale of their matrimonial home. During the proceedings, evidence was adduced to show that Mr. Ahluwalia had been abusive towards Ms. Ahluwalia during the entirety of their 16-year marriage. Ms. Ahluwalia also sought relief for the damages she incurred during marriage at the hand of Mr. Ahluwalia. Justice Mandhane agreed with the position of Ms. Ahluwalia and awarded her $150,000 in damages and created a new tort of “family violence”.
Justice Kasirer, writing for the majority, found that the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial decision, allowed the appeal in part and recognized a new tort of “intimate partner violence”. The majority did not agree with the Court of Appeal that Mr. Ahluwalia’s actions taken during the parties’ marriage would be adequately covered by pre-existing torts.
The three torts that were discussed by the majority were intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery. While each of these torts have aspects of intimate partner violence that they could adequately cover, for example, instances of physical assault on a partner, the majority found that they could not cover the more insidious and subtle actions taken by abusive partners.
While the majority did create a new tort to cover the lapse of protection that should be afforded, they did not create a new tort of “family violence”. Instead, the majority created a new tort of “intimate partner violence”, doing so, because they found that the original framing of the new tort as “family violence” was too broad.
The SCC set out three elements for the new tort of intimate partner violence.
The party claiming intimate partner violence must establish:
The tort is tied specifically to intimate relationships and the unique trust and dependency that often exist within them.
The claimant does not need to prove that the other party specifically intended to exercise control. Instead, it is sufficient to show that the conduct itself was intentional.
The court will consider whether a reasonable person, informed by the context of the relationship, would view the behaviour, taken cumulatively, as asserting control in a way that deprived the claimant of dignity, autonomy, or equality within the relationship.
Notably, the Court held that the harm associated with coercive control flows from proof of the wrongful conduct itself and does not require separate proof of consequential injury.
Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia represents an important development in Canadian law.
By recognizing intimate partner violence as a distinct civil wrong grounded in coercive control and the deprivation of autonomy, the SCC has expanded the legal framework available to address abuse within intimate relationships.
INB Family Law LLP has experienced family law lawyers who can assist. Contact us today to book a consultation.