When Abuse Is More Than Physical: The Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Intimate Partner Violence

In a landmark decision, Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence.

This development extends the law to allow survivors to bring claims against their romantic partners for damages arising from “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.”

The Background

In Ahluwalia, the husband abused the wife throughout their 16-year marriage. The abuse included “physical assaults, humiliation, intimidation, and conduct intending to inflict emotional distress; it extended to isolation of the wife from family members, mistreatment as a means of pressure for sex, and financial control.”  After the husband initiated divorce proceedings, the wife sought damages for the abuse she had suffered.

At trial, the first level of court in Ontario awarded the wife $50,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, in addition to family law remedies. The decision was appealed. Although the husband conceded that the abusive conduct gave rise to liability under existing torts, the Court of Appeal reduced the damages by $50,000 by setting aside the punitive damages award. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that “no new tort of domestic violence or coercive control should be recognized. In its view, the trial judge erred in deciding that existing torts were not flexible enough to encompass the pattern of abuse at issue and that a new tort of family violence was required.”  The matter ultimately proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada  (the “SCC”) heard submissions from the parties as well as 20 intervenors. In its reasons, the SCC concluded that there was a gap in the law relating to intimate partner violence and that recognizing a new tort was both necessary and permissible. The SCC noted that new torts may be recognized where required to clarify legal principles, resolve inconsistencies, or ensure the law evolves with society.

The SCC provided meaningful definitions of both an intimate partnership and intimate partner violence. An intimate partnership was defined as “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.” Intimate partner violence was described as being centered on coercive control, involving patterns of behaviour used to dominate and undermine a partner’s autonomy. These patterns may manifest through physical, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse, as well as monitoring day-to-day movements.

The SCC also recognized that intimate partner violence is not experienced uniformly and that its impact may be shaped by gender and context, noting that women are disproportionately harmed by their partners. The SCC held that existing law failed to remedy “the specific wrongs to dignity, autonomy, and equality that intimate partner violence creates.”

Under the new tort, a plaintiff must establish three elements to succeed in a claim for damages:

1. “The abusive conduct arose in or an intimate partnership or its aftermath.”
2. “The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct.”
3. “The conduct, or an objective measure, constitutes coercive control. The trial judge must determine 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. Where circumstances show that the reasonable person would conclude that the abusive conduct is incompatible with the intimate partnership, the burden will be readily met. The harm associated with coercion flows from proof of the wrongful conduct. Accordingly, this new tort does not require the plaintiff to prove any consequential harm separately.”

The SCC emphasized the access-to-justice implications of this new law in stating, “access to justice requires a broader tort of intimate partner violence” and that this new law “should allow simple recovery for discrete instances of intimate partner violence.”

What Does This Mean for Survivors Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence?

The Supreme Court of Canada did not address limitation periods for intimate partner violence claims.

In British Columbia, there is no limitation period for bringing an assault claim where the parties were living in an intimate or personal relationship, or where there was a relationship of financial, emotional, physical, or other dependency. As a result, survivors may bring claims regardless of how much time has passed since the abuse occurred.

While this new tort has not yet been tested in British Columbia, it is reasonable to expect that existing limitation rules for intimate partner violence would apply equally to claims brought under this new cause of action.

If you have questions, contact us to speak with our experienced team.