In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada has created a new tort of intimate partner violence (IPV). The SCC has found that nature of coercive control and loss of autonomy makes it necessary to create a new tort for intimate partner violence specifically, not all family violence in totality.
IPV is a pervasive social concern worthy of the full attention of the law. The SCC distinguished IPV from other personal and familial bonds due to the nature of mutual obligations and interdependence in creating a common life as a couple. It is crucial to note that mere dysfunction or imbalance between the parties is insufficient for the finding of the tort of IPV, as the tort requires an interference with one’s autonomy.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Ahluwalia’s and Ms. Ahluwalia’s married in India on November 28, 1999. In 2001, following the birth of their first child, they moved to Canada to secure their financial future. Their relationship deteriorated in the late 2000s and into the 2010s. Following 2012, the parties stopped communicating with each other unless it was through their children. They separated permanently in 2016 when Mr. Ahluwalia was 48 years old and Ms. Ahluwalia was 47. Ms. Ahluwalia remained in the family home with the children. Both children refused to see Mr. Ahluwalia after the separation.
The divorce proceedings were brought forward by Mr. Ahluwalia in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The trial judge concluded that Ms. Ahluwalia had suffered for 16 years in a marriage full of coercion and control. The marriage was violent, including physical, emotional, financial, and sexual abuse. Ms. Ahluwalia sought sole decision-making authority for the children, child support, spousal support, property equalization, and the sale of the matrimonial home.
The matter was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where Mr. Ahluwalia conceded that his abusive conduct gave rise to liability under existing torts. However, he was able to obtain a reduction of damages at trial and a declaration from the ONCA that no new tort of domestic violence of coercive control needed recognition. The ONCA concluded that the existing torts of battery, assault, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress were sufficient and awarded aggravated damages on those grounds.
The SCC overturned the decision of the lower court, finding that the ONCA’s decision to not create a new tort was an error of law for two reasons: (1) it neglected to address that Ms. Ahluwalia’s claim was based on coercive control and its distinct harm to her interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship, and (2) stretching existing torts could not accommodate the coercive character of the wrong addressed here. Ms. Ahluwalia was awarded $100,000 in general compensatory damages in relation to the tort of intimate partner violence.
ANALYSIS
The SCC concluded that a finding of the tort of Intimate Partner Violence requires the plaintiff to establish three elements:
- That the abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath.
- That the defendant intentionally engaged in abusive conduct.
This kind of coercive control can be established with 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; and threatening conduct, including threatening to harm the children or take them away, and threatening to commit suicide.
- That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control. The standard is whether a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context of the relationship, would see the defendant’s actions as assertion of control over the plaintiff that has the effect of depriving them of their dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship. The harm associated with coercion flows from proof of the wrongful conduct.
With respect to the case at hand, the SCC concluded that Ms. Ahluwalia made out all three elements of the new tort in her marriage. She was the victim of a pattern of abusive behaviour for 16 years, both acts of extreme physical violence but also the subtle manipulation that this tort, unlike existing ones, addresses. The immigration to Canada left Ms. Ahluwalia extra vulnerable to her husband’s coercion and made her unable to make independent decisions. Mr. Ahluwalia curbed his wife’s ability to pursue her career, happiness, friendships, and familial relations. The abusive conduct did not just cause physical and emotional harm, but sought to control Ms. Ahluwalia’s entire life.
Restitution is the court-ordered financial payment from an offender to a victim. For the tort of Intimate Partner Violence, the Court seeks to restore parties to the position they would have been in had the wrong against them not occurred. The SCC specifically highlight that awards for assessment of damages between couples should not be lower than for similar conduct between strangers. Instead, courts must be alive to the specific nature of the tort and the extent of harm caused to the victim’s dignity, autonomy, and equality when assessing the quantum of damages.
CONCLUSION
Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia serves as a landmark case on the future of the family law landscape. By responding to the crisis of IPV in Canada, the SCC has set out a new precedent for lower courts that address the factual reality of the violence faced in these cases.