Written by: Mackenzie Bennett Banks (View All Posts
) Published: June 2, 2026
Categorized: Family Court, Family Law.
Tags: intimate partner violence, Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its decision on Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (“Ahluwalia”) on May 15, 2026. The facts of the case are as follows: The parties were married for 16 years, during the entirety of which, Mr. Ahluwalia abused Mrs. Ahluwalia. The trial court found that the abusive conduct was substantive, and included physical assaults, humiliation, intimidation, and conduct intending to inflict emotional distress. The most notable conduct found relevant to the Supreme Court’s decision was that the husband’s coercive and controlling behaviour over the wife to break her will and conditioned her to obey him from the beginning of the marriage.
The matter was heard at the trial court level, at which the trial judge awarded Mrs. Ahluwalia $150,000 in damages. This was comprised of $50,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages for what the trial judge characterized as “the novel tort of family violence”. The decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which overturned the trial court’s decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized family violence as a “pervasive social problem”; however, it found that a new tort of domestic violence or coercive control should not be recognized, reasoning that the problem was addressable through the currently recognized torts.
In its decision, the SCC has recognized a tort of “intimate partner violence” which it determined differs from the trial court’s definition of “family violence”. The definition of family violence was added as an amendment to the Divorce Act in 2021. The Divorce Act’s definition of family violence is as follows:
any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes
(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;
(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property; (violence familiale)
Other provincial legislation defines family violence in similar terms.
The SCC clarified that Ahluwalia did not create a tort of family violence, through which one may claim damages for the acts upon one family member to another. The SCC clarified that the tort is specifically unique to intimate partner violence, which the SCC describes as a “social ill deserving of the full attention of the law”. The SCC goes on to explain the seriousness of the conduct of one person upon another in an intimate relationship. An intimate partner relationship is capable of fostering a level of trust, and the breach of that trust renders it qualitatively different from violence between strangers. Notably, the SCC wrote as follows:
“An intimate partnership is 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. Distinguishable from other personal or familial bonds, intimate partnerships create in each partner mutual obligations to share a common life marked by intimacy, interdependence, and respect. It is the intimacy and the durable partnership based on mutual dependency that create the setting in which sustained coercion and control can be tortious.”
The SCC clarified the test for finding the tort of “intimate partner violence” to be comprised of three elements:
- The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
- That the defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
- That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.
While intimate partner violence has similarities to “family violence” as defined in the Divorce Act and provincial family legislation, it is characterized by coercive and controlling behaviour over a period of time. A single wrongful act is not excluded as part of this new tort of intimate partner violence, nor are discrete acts of abuse that appear disconnected over time. The SCC noted that the extent of that harm may warrant a greater or lesser quantum of damages.
The SCC addressed the sequence between a tort claim of intimate partner violence and a statutory claim. For example, where both damages and spousal support are payable, the SCC considered which remedy takes priority. Justice Katsirer reasoned that the factual findings from the quantum of damages would address subsequent statutory remedies. The SCC decided that when a matter includes both statutory and tort claims, it may be more conducive to resolve the tort claim first and then implement any further statutory remedies. However, the SCC recommended that the judge hearing a matter must determine the appropriate sequence to address the issues; the SCC therefore waived any set sequence of priority.
The SCC did not set a limitation period as to when someone may claim a tort of intimate partner violence. In some provinces, no limitation period applies to civil claims for an assault arising from an intimate relationship. The SCC considered the long lasting and pervasive effects of intimate partner violence in a victim’s life. Victims face access to justice barriers when limitation periods track only certain forms of abuse. Under the tort of intimate partner violence, the SCC found that coercive intimate partner violence should be understood as a continuing injury. However, the SCC called for legislative action to consider a limitation period that is appropriate for intimate partnerships.
Ahluwalia is a landmark decision and fundamentally changes the practice of family law in Canada. It’s application throughout courts in Canada will be paramount to the future of family law.
