In a landmark decision, Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed the creation of a tort of intimate partner violence. The SCC recognized a gap in tort law which failed to compensate for coercive control, and the loss of autonomy, dignity, and equality within an intimate relationship. The SCC also recognized the importance of recognizing that there was a gap in Canadian tort law, with Kasirer J., writing for the majority, that “intimate partner violence is a pernicious social ill deserving full attention of the law” (para. 3).
This case arose from a long-term marriage characterized by abusive patterns including financial, psychological, and physical control.
Recognizing a New Tort
Two principles guide judicial recognition of new torts: incrementalism and necessity. These principles reflect the proper role of the courts not to make policy changes, but to ensure the law remains up-to-date with the evolution of society and to address gaps in the law.
Prior to Ahluwalia, the dissenting opinion of Brown and Rowe JJ. in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 provided the legal framework for recognizing a new tort. In brief, the dissenting judges provided that recognizing a new tort required a wrong, the necessity to address that wrong, and for that wrong to be an appropriate subject of judicial consideration (para. 237).
In Ahluwalia, the SCC set out a consolidated 3-part framework for the recognition of a new tort (para. 83):
the facts must show a wrongful act that offends a recognized legal interest in private law, or an interest around which there is emerging acceptance;
the existing remedies must be inadequate; and
if the first two requirements are satisfied, the court must carefully tailor the new tort to address the wrong in a manner consistent with the purposes of tort law and the proper role of the courts.
Elements of the New Tort
The new tort of intimate partner violence requires a plaintiff to establish three elements:
the abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
the defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.
If the three elements of the tort are established, harm to the plaintiff is proven and liability follows.
1. The Abusive Conduct Arose in an Intimate Partnership or its Aftermath
Intimacy and durable partnership based on mutual dependency creates the setting in which coercive control can be tortious. The inherent trust within intimate partnerships distinguishes them from other relationships (such as familial, friend, and parent-child) that may be characterized by closeness.
The SCC emphasized that coercive control can, and often does, extend beyond the formal end of a partnership, stating that while intimate partnerships often signal the beginning of tortious coercive control, “the breakdown of such partnerships does not necessarily mark the end of the harmful conduct” (para. 107).
2. The Defendant Intentionally Engaged in that Conduct
The plaintiff must establish that the defendant intended to engage in the conduct that is at issue before the Court. This does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant specifically intended to exercise coercive control or to cause a specific harm.
3. The Conduct Objectively Constitutes Coercive Control
Coercive control can be manifested through a single violent act, discrete acts of violence, or a pattern of abuse, but at its core it is conduct by which one partner overpowers the will of the other. Acts of physical violence are a plain example, but it can also include: tactics of isolation; manipulation; humiliation; surveillance; physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse; and intimidation that can control, isolate, and entrap intimate partners (para. 190).
What matters is not the frequency or nature of the conduct, but the effect on the dignity, autonomy, and equality of the victim.
The SCC emphasized that judges should refrain from imposing liability based on mere dysfunction or inevitable ups and downs of a relationship. An intimate partnership can suffer from dishonesty, infidelity, emotional neglect, lack of maturity, or even cold and dismissive conduct, but unless a reasonable person would view the conduct as coercive control, courts should not find liability on that basis alone.
Implications for Alberta Family Law
The SCC’s recognition of a new common law tort is binding across Canada. For litigants and lawyers in Alberta, there are a few implications that follow.
Family Law Claims
Where a proceeding includes both statutory claims (spousal support, property division, or parenting orders) and tort-based claims, the Court held that trial judges generally should address the tort claim first. Findings of intimate partner violence will be relevant to determinations of spousal support, property division, and parenting orders. While these two types of claims can impact each other, they should be treated as distinct remedies.
Evidence of intimate partner violence given by the plaintiffs will more accurately match the new tort, notwithstanding that the tort of intimate partner violence does not need to be specifically pled. This should increase access to justice and would be particularly helpful for self-represented litigants who commonly navigate family law proceedings.
Calculation of Damages
The quantum of damages will depend on the extent of the harm and the facts of each case. Ahluwalia did not set a range for damages of the new tort, but the trial judge’s award of $100,000 will be a reference point for argument in subsequent cases. Future decisions from lower courts will assist to calibrate the range of damages for loss of dignity, autonomy, and equality.
Conclusion
The SCC’s recognition of a new tort of intimate partner violence has recognized the pervasive and often invisible patterns of abuse and unique harms that victims experience within intimate partnerships. This decision will undoubtedly profoundly impact family law, but how it will be applied by lower courts in the future will serve as further direction.