June 9, 2026
Supreme Court Recognizes New Tort Of Intimate Partner Violence
By: Amelia Staunton, Brett Stephenson, and Mark Barrett
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, has recognized a new common law tort of intimate partner violence, marking a significant development in Canadian tort law. The majority held that existing intentional torts do not adequately address the unique harm caused by coercive control within intimate relationships and that a new tort is necessary to provide meaningful redress.
Background and Procedural History
The case arose from divorce proceedings between Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia and Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia. Ms. Ahluwalia sought damages arising from years of physical abuse and coercive, controlling behaviour during the marriage.
At trial, the court found that Ms. Ahluwalia had been subjected to a prolonged pattern of abuse and awarded damages. The trial judge recognized a novel tort of family violence, while also finding that liability could alternatively have been established through existing torts such as assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Ontario Court of Appeal declined to recognize the new tort of family violence, holding that existing torts were sufficient to address the misconduct. Although the court upheld liability, it reduced the damages awarded.
SCC Decision
The appeal to the SCC focused on whether a new tort should be recognized. The majority concluded that the common law should evolve to recognize a distinct tort of intimate partner violence, while limiting its application to intimate relationships rather than adopting the broader tort of family violence recognized at trial.
A central aspect of the decision was the majority’s conclusion that traditional torts such as assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress fail to capture the full nature of coercive control. While those torts compensate victims for discrete acts of violence or psychological harm, they do not adequately recognize the sustained deprivation of autonomy, dignity, equality, and personal agency that can arise through a pattern of do mination and control.
In short, the majority found that the existing torts fail to remedy the specific wrong to dignity, autonomy and equality that intimate partner violence creates. The court rejected the broader tort of family violence recognized at trial, finding it too expansive, and instead confined the new tort to the specific context of intimate partner relationships.
The New Tort
i) The Required Elements and Test
The SCC established three elements for the new tort of intimate partner violence:
- The abusive conduct occurred during an intimate relationship or its aftermath;
- The Defendant intentionally engaged in the abusive conduct; and
- The conduct, viewed objectively and in its full context, amounted to coercive control.
ii) What Is an Intimate Partnership?
The SCC described an intimate partnership 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.”
The SCC emphasized that the concept is rooted in the substantive qualities of the relationship rather than formal indicators such as marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations.
iii) What Is Intentional Abuse?
A Plaintiff need only establish that the Defendant intended to engage in the impugned conduct. It is not necessary to prove that the Defendant specifically intended to dominate or control the Plaintiff.
iv) What Constitutes Coercion and Coercive Control?
Flowing from (ii) above, the SCC stated that it is the intimacy and the durable partnership based on mutual dependency that creates the setting in which sustained coercion and control can be tortious.
According to the SCC, examples of conduct that constitute coercive control include: 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.
The SCC emphasized that conduct that may appear relatively minor in isolation can, when viewed cumulatively, reveal a broader pattern of coercive control.
v) Application
The SCC established that courts may award general compensatory damages for the loss of dignity, autonomy, and equality associated with coercive control, together with compensation for any additional harm flowing from that conduct.
Coverage Implications
Claims that may arise as a result of this new tort would not likely attract any coverage under standard homeowners’ policy forms. The tort focuses on the pattern of control and coercion and not on resulting bodily injury. There would have to be an accompanying allegation of at least mental distress in the pleading to get within a personal liability insuring agreement.
The tort also requires proof of intent to commit the acts, which brings into consideration lack of fortuity and/or intentional act exclusions. Most homeowners’ policies also exclude claims arising out of bodily injury to any person who resides in the same household. Some abuse exclusion wordings might preclude coverage as well.
However, there are always potential situations where coverage might arise. Consider, for example, the context of a romantic relationship that arises in the workplace, and where the employer is made aware of the abusive conduct of one of the parties. While direct liability might not result, there is a prospect of vicarious liability against the employer.
Key Takeaways and Emerging Issues
In creating the new tort of intimate partner violence, Canada’s highest court has signalled again that it is open to expanding the existing categories of civil torts in order to recognize new and emerging claims. This new tort demonstrates that the SCC recognizes dignity, equality, and autonomy as fundamental rights deserving of protection through the common law.
The SCC has expressly acknowledged the cumulative effects of psychological abuse, intimidation, financial control, fear, and coercion within intimate relationships. The decision reflects a willingness to provide remedies for forms of abuse that may not fit neatly within existing intentional torts.
The new tort is distinct from traditional torts because it focuses on the unique wrong of coercive control and the resulting loss of autonomy: the harm associated with coercive control flows from proof of the wrongful conduct itself. This aspect of the decision may generate future debate regarding the scope of recoverable damages and the extent to which consequential harm must be proven. As noted by the dissenting justices, this decision leaves unresolved questions regarding the appropriate assessment of damages and how awards under the new tort should compare with those available under existing intentional torts.
For more information or if you have questions about this article, please contact the authors: Mark Barrett ([email protected]), Amelia Staunton ([email protected]), and Brett Stephenson ([email protected]).
