Introduction

On 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released one of the most important family law decisions in decades.  In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, a 6 – 3 majority of the SCC recognized a new common law tort of intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV is structured around coercive and controlling conduct as between partners or spouses. This decision provides survivors of domestic abuse civil remedies against their abuser. This decision is likely to change the landscape of family law and may open floodgates for such claims. Courts will need to learn how to adjudicate this new tort going forward.

Family violence in Alberta has largely been addressed through Emergency Protections Orders, Restraining Orders, and charges under the Criminal Code of Canada. Such abuses were recognized as grounds for a divorce or separation but were generally irrelevant when it came determining remedies under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act. This remains true however the SCC decision provides individuals the ability to seek civil remedies, including financial compensation, against a coercive and/or abusive spouse/partner. In other words, victims can now sue their abusers for damages.  

Background Facts

Kuldeep Ahluwalia and Amrit Ahluwalia were married in1999 in India. They immigrated to Canada in 2001. They had two children. They separated in 2016. Ms. Ahluwalia endured what the Courts found to be a sustained pattern of serious harm throughout the relationship. Ms. Ahluwalia alleged that her husband engaged in a prolonged pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including intimidation, humiliation, financial restriction, threats, isolation, and physical violence.

Mr. Ahluwalia commenced divorce proceedings following the separation from his wife. Ms. Ahluwalia did not contest the divorce and asked for sole decision-making authority for the children, child support, spousal support, equalization of family property, and the sale of the matrimonial home. She also asked for damages for the abuse she suffered over the course of this relationship.

Court Process

  • Ontario Superior Court (2022)

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court found that the husband engaged in serious physical assault on his wife on multiple occasions during their marriage. The Court also recognized a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour on his part. The Justice recognized a new tort of family violence and awarded the wife compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages. The total damages awarded at trial amounted to $150,000.

  • Ontario Court of Appeal (2023)

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with the creation of a new tort of IPV. Ontario’s highest court ruled that existing torts were adequate to cover the harms suffered by Ms. Ahluwalia. The Court of Appeal reduced the damages award to $100,000. Ms. Ahluwalia then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

  • Supreme Court of Canada (2026)

The SCC heard the appeal over two days, 11 & 12 February 2025, with 17 interveners participating, including the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and numerous family violence support agencies. The SCC rendered its decision on 15 May 2026. The SCC allowed the appeal and held that there was a tort of IPV on a 6-3 basis.

There is a 3-part test to determine if an applicant has a meritorious application within the new tort of IPV.

The Three-Part Test for IPV

Justice Kasirer, writing for the majority, held that the new tort of IPV requires a plaintiff to establish three elements: (1) that abusive conduct arose within an intimate partner relationship or its aftermath; (2) that the defendant intentionally engaged in the abusive conduct; and (3) that the conduct, assessed objectively, constituted coercive control.

Once the three elements of the tort are established, the harm is present and damages may follow. The majority noted that the quantum of damages must represent a meaningful and reasonable response to the seriousness of the breach.

Family law has long dealt with violence within the family but unless it was directly impacting children, as opposed to a spouse, the Court largely found such facts to be irrelevant and immaterial to the available remedies under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act. In fact, many lawyers would remove such facts from their client’s affidavits because Judges would find these facts to merely be an attack on the other party’s character and find that the information has no place in the family law proceedings. Why then did the SCC take this leap forward? 

Prior to Ahluwalia, Canadian tort law provided only limited civil remedies for victims and survivors of domestic violence. This included claims for assault and battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The majority of the SCC explained that the new tort fills a gap in the common law dealing with intimate partnerships. The crux of this new tort is the conduct of partners/spouses within an intimate partner relationship. When this conduct objectively results in the domination and or control over a spouse/partner then that is a distinguishable difference from the existing torts. It is the intimate partnership that enables the abuser to exert control over the victim. The liability arises when the coercive control interferes with an intimate partner’s autonomy within the relationship. In addition to the physical or psychological harm that can be caused by abuse, it is the victim’s identity and dignity that are significantly impacted.

The Majority Opinion

The majority of the SCC held that Ms. Ahluwalia had established the three elements of the new tort, and that Mr. Ahluwalia controlled her and undermined her dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship. The harm she suffered therefore fell within the scope of the new tort of IPV.

The majority’s reasons reflect a recognition that domestic abuse is not merely a collection of isolated incidents, but rather a pattern of domination that cannot be fully captured by the traditional torts. The SCC’s decision creates a new pathway for litigants to pursue damages against their intimate partners for a range of conduct beyond physical violence, including isolation, humiliation, surveillance, financial control, sexual coercion, and intimidation.

Justice Karakatsanis provided a concurring opinion but went even further indicating that she was of the view that the tort of IPV should not be limited to cases where coercive control is established. The Justice suggested the threshold should be framed more broadly to capture the full spectrum of IPV.

The Dissenting Opinion

Three of the SCC Justices did not agree with the majority of 6. Justices Jamal, Côté, and Rowe dissented vigorously. They would have dismissed the appeal, finding that no new tort was warranted because Ms. Ahluwalia was fully compensated under existing torts.

Writing on behalf of the dissenting Justices, Justice Jamal took aim at both the necessity and the workability of the new tort. The dissent reasoned that Courts have already relied on existing torts to address the varied and serious harms arising from IPV. The dissent also raised broader concerns for litigants and trial courts, questioning whether the new tort provides sufficiently clear guidance concerning what conduct constitutes coercive control, how damages should be assessed, and how the new framework differs in practice from existing tort remedies.

In addition, Justice Jamal added that the facts before them was sufficient to dismiss the appeal because the trial judge had already concluded that Ms. Ahluwalia was owed full compensation under the existing torts. The dissent raised concerns that the new tort introduces unnecessary complexities which may impact access to justice.

What Next?

This decision is likely to change the face of family law. Most lawyers screen for family violence but have generally been cautioned by the Courts about including those facts within Divorce Act or Family Law Act proceedings.  Lawyers will need to carefully navigate how to process this information to determine when a Claim should be advanced under the new tort of IPV. Many clients will want retribution for harm they feel they have suffered and this is now another emotional area for lawyers to discuss with clients. This new tort may very well create a flood of new litigation until further cases are heard and this new area of law is more clearly defined.  

For those who have suffered from IPV, it provides a specified cause of action that includes the cumulative nature of coercive and controlling conduct, something that existing torts were not well suited towards.  It also sends a clear message from the SCC about the seriousness with which the highest Court in our country views the systemic harm caused by IPV. Did the SCC react to a missing tort for those suffering from IPV, or was this a reaction to societal change? 

The dissenting minority raised legitimate questions that will need to be worked out in future litigation. Where is the line between coercive control and difficult interpersonal conflict? How will courts assess damages? How will the new tort interact with family law proceedings? Will IPV claims be relevant to issues of parenting or spousal support factors despite the wording of existing family law legislation?  We anticipate that lawyers and judges will struggle with these issues over the coming months and years.

Family lawyers should be mindful that the grounds for divorce or separation and an affidavit outlining IPV is not enough to engage this new tort. This tort requires a separate pleading from any Divorce Act or Family Law Act action, by way of Statement of Claim under Part 3 of the Alberta Rules of Court. This will not, however, prevent a party from indicating there has been IPV within a Divorce or Family Law Act proceeding. We suspect that affidavits will be filled with such alleged conduct now and that may cause requests for existing page limitations to be extended.

What Can Grey Wowk Spencer (GWS) Do For You?

The creation and recognition of the tort of IPV creates a new avenue for survivors seeking justice and accountability against the wrongdoer. GWS can provide objective fact-driven legal advice from a place of compassion. Every case is different and the strength of a claim under this new tort will depend on the specific circumstances of the relationship and the evidence available. GWS will assess IPV matters on a case-by-case basis. If you or someone you know may have a claim arising from IPV, or if you require advice on how this decision may affect ongoing or contemplated proceedings, we encourage you to reach out to our team of experts to discuss your situation in confidence.