On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision on whether Canadian law should recognize a new tort/civil claim for intimate partner violence experienced by a former partner throughout a relationship, for which damages are now available to be awarded.
The Court ultimately held that existing torts (which are civil claims for wrongdoing, separate from the criminal law context), such as battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, did not adequately address the types of non-physical harm experienced by victims of intimate partner violence and that the law needed to evolve accordingly. For example, claims for battery and assault provide compensation for individuals who experience physical or threatened harm, and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress applies where a person experiences provable emotional or psychological damages due to another party’s actions. However, none of these torts are designed to compensate a victim for the silent loss of autonomy, dignity and equality that can occur as a result of coercive and controlling intimate partner violence.
In the case before the Supreme Court of Canada titled Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, Mrs. Ahluwalia had made a claim against her former husband for damages on account of the abuse she experienced throughout their 16-year marriage. She claimed that Mr. Ahluwalia physically assaulted her, but also humiliated and intimidated her, which led to isolation from family members, pressure to engage in intimate acts, and financial control. At the initial trial level, the judge recognized a new tort of family violence and awarded Mrs. Ahluwalia $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated and punitive damages.
The husband appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeal reduced the amount of damages awarded and declared that no new tort should be recognized. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the appellate court, finding that the law must evolve to recognize the new tort of “intimate partner violence”, but did not disturb its finding on damages as the parties had elected to settle this issue outside of court.
The Court was clear that intimate partner violence is a “pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law” and it includes “all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy”.
Although intimate partner violence may include physical and psychological violence, it can also consist of tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap a person in an intimate relationship. While a broken heart will not suffice, situations where a person has experienced a total loss of autonomy, due to coercive/controlling behaviour exhibited by their former partner, can now attract liability.
In the Ahluwalia case, the abuse experienced by Mrs. Ahluwalia was sustained and continued throughout the marriage. However, the Court was clear that a single act of violence may be sufficient to ground a claim for intimate partner violence.
The Court delineated a three-part test in order to succeed with this type of claim, which is beyond the scope of this article. It is important to obtain legal advice regarding your particular situation.
All of the above is provided for informational purposes only and is not to be considered legal advice. Please ensure that you consult a lawyer in regard to your particular circumstances.
Giggey & Despatie LLP | 613-936-1800 | alexis@giggeydespatielaw.ca | www.giggeydespatielaw.ca
Any content, resident submissions, guest columns, advertisements, and advertorials are not necessarily endorsed by or represent the views of Best Version Media LLC (BVM) or any municipality, homeowners associations, businesses, or organizations that this publication serves. BVM is not responsible for the reliability, suitability, or timeliness of any content submitted, inclusive of materials generated or composed through artificial intelligence (AI). All content submitted is done so at the sole discretion of the submitting party.
