Case Comment: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released the monumental decision of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, on May 15, 2026, and it has been making news waves ever since. But what does this case actually mean for the women that Luke’s Place serves?
Background
Before we dive into it, if you are interested in reading about the facts of the case, you can refer to our previous post, Recent family law case: Tort of family violence. Additionally, Luke’s Place was one of the intervenors at both the Court of Appeal and at the SCC, and you can learn more about our position on this landmark decision in our post, Supreme Court of Canada recognizes tort of intimate partner violence.
The SCC in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia has recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence in Canadian law.
“Intimate partners have a right to be treated by one another as equals, and abusive conduct that serves to coerce or control one partner and places the other in a position of dominance constitutes a civil wrong under this new tort.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para. 199]
What is a tort?
Let’s start by discussing what a tort is. In general, a person can go to civil court and bring a tort claim against someone whose actions caused them harm. The person bringing the tort claim is seeking financial compensation (called “damages”) from the wrongdoer for the harm they have endured. The purpose of the financial compensation is to restore the person to the position they would have been in if not for the wrongdoer’s actions.
In Canada, our courts have identified specific tort claims that can be brought. A person can only bring a tort claim against a wrongdoer for a tort that our courts have recognized and established. Before the SCC decision in Ahluwalia (which has now recognized the new tort of intimate partner violence), survivors of intimate partner violence could bring a claim for damages under torts like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
It is also important to note that torts can be claimed in family law cases. This was made clear by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ahluwalia, before the case made its way up to the SCC.
What is the tort of intimate partner violence?
The SCC in Ahluwalia has established that a new tort should exist – the tort of intimate partner violence. This is because the SCC said the existing torts did not properly address the true nature of the harm that is caused by intimate partner violence.
“Intimate partner violence is not fully captured by assault, battery, [intentional infliction of emotional distress], or other existing torts because they fail to account for the intimate partner context and the distinct effect of the abuse visited upon the intimate partner: to dominate the relationship by coercing and controlling the victim, in various and sometimes subtle ways, often over a long period of time, so the relationship itself becomes one of subordination, inequality, and indignity.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para. 12]
The creation of this new tort means that survivors of intimate partner violence can now bring a claim for the tort of intimate partner violence either in civil court or within their family law court case.
What is the legal test for the tort of intimate partner abuse?
Just like with every other order that is requested in court, the court does not automatically grant the relief just because it is requested. Instead, the courts review the law, see how other courts have interpreted the law, and weigh the evidence before they decide on whether to grant the requested relief. The same will apply for this new tort of intimate partner violence.
The SCC has provided us with a 3-part test that the person requesting the relief must meet on a balance of probabilities in order to be awarded damages under this new tort:
- The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
- That the wrongdoer intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
- That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.
This tort can apply to conduct that happened during the relationship or after separation, with the SCC specifically acknowledging that abuse often continues after separation. The SCC recognized, for instance, that co-parenting requires ongoing connection between former partners, providing an arena for ongoing violence (para 185 of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16).
The SCC also specifically acknowledge litigation abuse as a common form of post-separation violence. Litigation abuse is described by the majority as a form of violence “where intimate partners utilize the legal system as a tool “to coerce, control, harass, undermine and dominate” their intimate partners”. The decision then goes on to recognize that this is a “well-documented tactic frequently employed by abusers to control survivors” (para 194 of Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16). This is an amazing step forward in having the courts put in writing the devastating impact that litigation abuse (also referred to as legal bullying) has.
In their decision, the SCC also included a number of very helpful statements about coercive control and what it can look like, including the following:
“…evidence may show a range of abusive conduct that appears less harmful in isolation but which may, considered cumulatively, form a pattern of coercive control. For guidance, the following are some types of conduct that are capable of constituting coercive control: 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 foregoing list is merely illustrative and should not be treated as exhaustive.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 207]
This new tort does not require proof of harm to establish liability. Rather, the SCC has outlined that the harm flows from proof of the wrongful conduct itself. While evidence of harm will not be needed to prove the wrongful conduct, it will be needed to establish the amount of damages that should be awarded.
What kind of damages can be claimed?
If all three elements of this test are met, then the court will need to determine the amount of damages to award the survivor to compensate them for the harm they have endured. The SCC’s decision has only just been released, so we do not yet know the range of damages that the courts in Canada will award when all three elements of the above-noted test are met.
In the case of Mrs. Ahluwalia, she was awarded $100,000, however that amount was decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal and was not subject to appeal at the SCC (meaning the SCC did not make a decision about the amount of damages that were awarded when making their decision).
There are past cases involving damages in situations of intimate partner violence under other torts (for example, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) that may be helpful to review while the case law for this new tort continues to develop.
Where do we go from here?
With all of this in mind, what are some next steps that survivors of intimate partner violence could be taking at this time?
Get legal advice
First, survivors interested in possibly making a claim under this new tort should get legal advice from a lawyer.
For survivors in family court who have already retained a family law lawyer, they should schedule a meeting to speak with that lawyer about this new tort. Even if the survivor has already started a family court case, she should still speak with her lawyer and ask whether to amend her pleadings to include a claim for the tort of intimate partner violence.
Survivors who are interested in starting a claim in civil court (i.e. not family court) have the option of hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. This means they only pay the lawyer if their claim against the abusive ex-partner is successful. This option is not available to survivors in family court.
Survivors in family court have the option of hiring a lawyer on a limited-scope basis, meaning they could pay a lawyer to help with parts of their case or with some legal issues. For instance, in relation to this new tort, the lawyer could draft or amend pleadings to include a tort claim or help a survivor understand and gather evidence about this new tort.
Legal Aid Ontario does not provide certificates for survivors in civil court. They also do not allow tort claims to be covered under a family law certificate.
If a survivor does not have a lawyer, there are a few services that provide free, summary legal advice about this new tort:
- The Independent Legal Advice Voucher Program: A survivor can potentially get up to 8 hours of free legal advice by phone or video. To learn more about this program, including eligibility requirements, visit the voucher program.
- Community organizations that offer summary legal advice clinics: Survivors involved in family court can access free legal advice through the Luke’s Place Legal Clinic. If there is another legal clinic in your local community, contact them to ask whether they will be able to provide summary legal advice to survivors about this new tort.
- Two-hour domestic violence certificates from Legal Aid Ontario: It is unclear whether Legal Aid Ontario will allow 2-hour Domestic Violence Certificates to be used for free summary legal advice about bringing a claim for this new tort in a family law case. While full family law certificates do not cover this issue, we await further information from Legal Aid about the 2-hour Domestic Violence Certificates. Learn more about 2-hour legal aid certificates.
Other ways to use the SCC’s decision
While recognizing this new tort, the SCC made numerous impactful and significant statements about intimate partner violence and coercive control, both in terms of what it can look like and the extensive harm it can cause.
Regardless of whether a survivor chooses to move forward with bringing a claim for the tort of intimate partner violence, the commentary from the SCC in this case can be referenced in support of other claims being made in family court, such as parenting. This is because whether intimate partner violence was present in a relationship must be considered under the Divorce Act (section 16) and the Children’s Law Reform Act (section 24) when considering the best interests of the child. Being able to refer to this case from the SCC when trying to prove intimate partner violence to secure a protective parenting order will unquestionably be impactful.
Some of the key quotes from the majority decision include the following:
“Sometimes, as in this case, discrete acts of physical, psychological, or sexual violence are best understood, when measured in the context of the relationship considered as a whole, as part of a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, all of which deprive the victim of their dignity, autonomy, and equality within the relationship. An act of violent misconduct may, on its own, constitute coercive control; it may also form part of a wider pattern that includes what is sometimes seen as lesser forms of violent coercion — for example, harassment, stalking, isolation of a partner from others, financial control, or pressure for unwanted sex.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 13]
“The emphasis on pattern, however, does not mean that only multiple acts of abuse qualify as coercive control. Rather, it calls on judges to be attuned to the context in which a wrongful act or acts occurred, including the power dynamics of the intimate partnership and any subtle acts that may appear innocuous in isolation. As Hayden J. observes in an English case, “the significance of isolated incidents can only truly be understood in the context of a much wider picture” (F. v. M., at para. 60). Indeed, viewing intimate partner violence through the lens of coercive control dispels the myth that isolated acts — or even a single act of violence — occur in a vacuum. Karakatsanis J. explained in Barendregt that “proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim” (para. 144; … A single act of violence, when considered in context, may objectively constitute coercive control if its impact on the victim undermines their dignity, autonomy, and equality within the relationship.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 192]
“Coercive and controlling conduct has been deemed “the most serious type of violence in the family law context”…This, in part, is due to an emerging recognition that coercive control is a risk factor of further acts of intimate partner violence and [translation] “a predictor of femicides”…Recent studies show that intimate partner violence goes frequently underreported by as much as 80 percent and, accordingly, legal action to redress the harm caused is often not undertaken by the victims… Even when intimate partner violence is reported, law enforcement may fail to recognize psychological abuse — the most common form of abuse according to one Quebec study — as part of a broader strategy of coercive control…” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 119]
“[I]ntimate partner violence, best understood, is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury, but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy...” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 120]
“Intimate partner violence entails a pattern of coercion that can unfold slowly over time, and may or may not be punctuated by incidents of physical or emotional distress…. The victim’s range of action is narrowed, leaving the victim subject to subordination that may persist without further intervention by the abuser.” [Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para 132]
Conclusion
This is an incredibly important decision for survivors of intimate partner violence across Canada. The SCC is the highest court in the country, and all other courts in Canada are bound by the decisions it makes. Not only do all courts across Canada have to now recognize the tort of intimate partner violence, but we are hopeful that the unanimous view from both the majority and dissenting decisions of the SCC that intimate partner violence is an epidemic deserving of a response from our legal system will continue to move our system forward when it comes to recognizing, addressing and ultimately ending this violence.
We will be continuing to monitor the developing case law that arises from this landmark decision and creating resources to help unrepresented survivors bring this claim in family court. Stay tuned for more updates!
For further information
Recording of a webinar hosted by the Learning Network: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia and What it Means for Survivors of IPV