On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (“the Court”) released Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, (Ahluwalia) recognized the tort of intimate partner violence in Canadian law. 

In doing so, the Court recognized that patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour within intimate partner relationships cause a unique form of harm to survivors, and that survivors are entitled to damages for that harm.

But what exactly does that mean?

Understanding the Terminology

A short note on terminology.  You may be wondering what terms like “tort”, “damages” and “coercive control” mean. 

Tort law is an area of civil law that deals with situations where one person causes harm to another.  Unlike laws passed by governments, tort law has largely developed gradually as judges decided cases over time.

For example, if your neighbour knows that the steps to their front door are unsafe but does not repair them, and you are injured after tripping and falling while returning mail that was mistakenly delivered to you, you may have a tort claim against your neighbour for compensation for your injuries and other losses.

In tort law, “damages” refers to a monetary award that a court may order to compensate a person for injuries, losses, or other harm caused by another person’s conduct or failure to act.

Now, let’s talk about coercive control. 

When the Court undertook to explain coercive control in Ahluwalia, the Honourable Justice Nicholas Kasirer devoted several paragraphs to the concept under the heading “intimate partner violence is centred around coercive control,” with numerous additional references throughout the decision.  Entire books have also been written on the subject, including the work of sociologist Evan Stark.  Needless to say, coercive control is a concept that can be difficult to fully define.

The Court summarized coercive control in this way at paragraph 190 of the decision:

Coercive control has broadly been described as conduct that non-exhaustively includes tactics of isolation; manipulation; humiliation; surveillance; physical, psychological, sexual and economic abuse; and intimidation that can control, isolate, and entrap intimate partners; it is a “a way to encompass and understand the use of a range of behaviours to control and restrict victims”, rather than being a specific form of conduct …

As the Court explained in Ahluwalia, coercive control often manifests through subtle, cumulative behaviours that may seem innocuous in isolation – and may go unnoticed by those unfamiliar with the relationship – but are deeply harmful when viewed within the broader context of the relationship.

The Facts

Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia (the “Father”) and Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia (the “Mother”) were married in India in 1999.  The parties’ first child was born in India in 2001, before the family immigrated to Canada, and their second child was born in 2004. 

Although both parties were highly educated, they quickly realized that having their foreign credentials recognized in Canada would require more time and money than they had available.  As a result, they both began working full-time at a plastics factory.  The Father eventually became a truck owner-operator and the Mother worked sporadically in various positions outside of the home.  The Mother remained primarily responsible for the care of the children and all household work.

The marriage was characterized by coercive control, as well as physical and psychological abuse perpetrated by the Father.  He controlled the family finances, took the Mother’s earnings, insulted and belittled her, and threatened to leave her and the children penniless.

The Father also subjected the Mother to extended periods of “silent treatment,” which would end only after she gave into his demands for sex.  The Father physically assaulted the Mother, and at trial the Mother gave evidence about three instances of serious physical assault in 2000, 2008 and 2013.

In 2013, the Mother was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Moderate Anxious Distress. 

The parties permanently separated in July 2016, when the Father left the matrimonial home and immediately closed the parties’ joint accounts, leaving the Mother without access to any funds.

Trial Before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Father commenced court proceedings.  Initially, the parties sought the remedies commonly seen in family law litigation, including child support, spousal support, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and equalization.

Although the Mother was initially represented by counsel, she began representing herself on September 13, 2019.

In March 2021, the Mother advanced a new claim seeking damages for the physical and mental abuse she suffered at the hands of the Father.  The trial judge summarized the Mother’s position as being that the three incidents of physical violence, coupled with the Father’s coercive and controlling behaviour, caused mental and physical harms warranting compensation in damages.

The Mother’s perseverance throughout these proceedings is difficult to ignore.  Representing oneself through an 11-day trial is extraordinarily difficult under any circumstances.  Doing so while advancing a novel legal claim arising from years of abuse is remarkable.

A Note on Justice Mandhane

At first instance, the parties appeared before Madam Justice Renu Mandhane of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who decided the case.

Justice Mandhane’s professional background is unique and worth briefly discussing in this context.  She was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario in May 2020.  Prior to her appointment, she served as Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, beginning in October 2015, before the age of 40. 

In a profile on the Canadian Bar Association website (https://cba.org/sections/women-lawyers/madam-justice/the-honourable-renu-mandhane/), Justice Mandhane explained that after completing a Master of Laws from New York University, she “practised criminal defence through an equality-rights lens,” representing women, both as complainants in sexual assault proceedings and as accused persons and prisoners.  She further noted that this work brought her “into close contact with racialized, Indigenous, and immigrant clients,” and that working with vulnerable communities “profoundly shaped” her understanding of advocacy and justice.  She has also said that she approaches her cases with empathy and an awareness of the human realities that people bring into the courtroom every day.

Do Existing Torts Go Far Enough?

Tasked with addressing the Mother’s claim in tort for damages arising from the Father’s conduct, Justice Mandhane had to consider whether existing torts—such as assault, battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress—fully addressed the harms suffered by the Mother, or whether a novel tort should be recognized. 

The trial judge held that the existing torts “do not fully capture the cumulative harm associated with the pattern of coercion and control that lays at the heart of family violence cases.”  She therefore recognized the new tort of “family violence” in order to account for and compensate these unique harms.

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed.

Applying the established framework governing novel torts, the Court of Appeal held that the courts should only recognize a new tort where there is a harm that “cries out” for a legal remedy that does not already exist.  In its view, the existing torts of battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress already adequately accounted and compensated for the harms of family violence, including coercive control.

The Supreme Court Canada disagreed with the Court of Appeal, while refining the trial judge’s reasoning.

The Court confirmed the tort of “intimate partner violence,” rather than the broader tort of “family violence,” emphasizing its focus on violence and coercive control within intimate partner relationships.

The Court held that existing torts are not up to the task because they failed to recognize the distinct nature of coercive control and the unique harms it causes:

While some of the conduct captured by the new tort may overlap with existing torts, coercive intimate partner violence generally includes and extends beyond discrete acts of physical and psychological abuse.  None of the existing torts consider whether the alleged wrongful conduct coerces or controls the victim, nor are they designed to compensate the victim for the distinct injury to their intangible interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality within an intimate relationship. 

What Must Be Proven?

The Court explained that a person bringing this type of claim must prove three elements in order to succeed in a claim for the tort of intimate partner violence:

1. The abusive conduct must arise in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
2. The person responsible for the abuse intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
3. The conduct, viewed objectively, constitutes coercive control.

Importantly, the Court held that proof of coercive control itself is sufficient to establish harm.  In other words, a survivor does not need to separately prove additional psychological or physical injury in order to establish harm and be entitled to compensation.

This aspect of the decision is significant because it recognizes that coercive control directly interferes with a person’s dignity, autonomy, and equality interests within an intimate relationship.

Why This Decision Matters

For many survivors and advocates, the decision represents long-overdue legal recognition of harms that have historically been minimized, misunderstood, or overlooked altogether.

As the Court acknowledged, coercive control often operates through subtle and cumulative conduct that can be difficult for outsiders to recognize, particularly when individual incidents are viewed in isolation.  Yet the cumulative impact of those behaviours can fundamentally alter a person’s autonomy, independence, and sense of self.

The response to the decision from survivors and advocacy organizations has therefore been deeply emotional.  As reported by the CBC:

“This is good, good news for survivors.  It adds another level of we’re being heard, because for so long we’ve been silenced.”, Brenda Ottenbriet, Survivor

Recognizing the tort of intimate partner violence does not erase the harm survivors have suffered.  However, it does represent an important acknowledgment by Canada’s highest court that coercive control is real, deeply harmful, and something the law should recognize and provide remedies for.

And for that, I can only say: credit is due to everyone involved.