Landmark Decision: New Tort of Intimate Partner Violence

Katie Black and Babacar Faye - In the landmark decision of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the new tort of Intimate Partner Violence, filling a gap in the law by (1) acknowledging the distinct harms caused by intimate partner violence and (2) enhancing survivors’ access to justice.

Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia survived 16 years of abuse perpetrated by her then husband. Originally self-represented at trial, Ms. Ahluwalia fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for compensatory, aggravated and punitive damages for the harms she suffered.  

In a powerful decision, the Supreme Court recognized the unique harm abusers inflict upon their intimate partners. Ahluwalia bridged the gaps in the existing jurisprudence to enable survivors to seek justice and compensation for the unique harms caused by perpetrators of domestic violence.

In striking and moving terms, the majority wrote:

Victims seek to be restored not to the state they were in before each incident of abuse, but to the fuller state of safety, freedom, and equality that existed before the pattern began. Failure to recognize this broader harm undermines the compensatory function of tort law. Recognizing the harms to dignity, autonomy, and equality caused by coercive control as compensable accords with corrective justice, the central animating principle underlying tort law. Where an intimate partner has been deprived of their ability to live free of coercion, as an equal to their spouse, the victim has not just suffered a loss deserving of compensation, but they have been the victim of a civil wrong in that their right to be treated with dignity, and as an autonomous equal in the relationship, has been violated.

RNAO’s role as Interveners

At Black & Associates, Katie Black, Lucie Atangana and Babacar Faye acted on behalf of the intervener, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), whose submissions were cited throughout the Supreme Court's decision.

On behalf of RNAO, we argued that family violence is a unique and deeply pervasive form of harm that deprives survivors of their fundamental liberty, health, safety and social well-being. We argued that existing torts, including the torts of battery, assault and intentional infliction of mental distress, do not adequately capture the patterns of deliberate conduct, including coercive control, social isolation, financial abuse, emotional dependency and psychological harm, all of which cumulate to fundamentally deprive intimate partners of their dignity and autonomy.

We asserted that intimate partner violence represents a unique form of harm because it undermines a victim’s autonomy, freedom and equal standing within a relational dynamic that is supposed to be predicated on mutual trust and security. Lastly, we presented a test for the new tort of Intimate Partner Violence.

The Court’s Decision

The 6–3 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada:

• Named and recognized the unique harm caused by violence among intimate partners;

• Recognized that patterns of deliberate conduct, including coercive control, social isolation, financial abuse, intimidation, surveillance, humiliation, emotional dependency, isolation, and psychological harm, constitute intimate partner violence;

• Recognizing the inadequacy of existing torts to address the distinct and cumulative harms caused by coercive and controlling abuse in intimate relationships;

• Created the new tort of intimate partner violence;

The majority of the Court described intimate partner violence as a “pernicious social ill” extending beyond isolated incidents of physical or psychological harm. It recognized that the current gap in the law in addressing this harm. Writing for the majority, Justice Kasirer indicated that  while battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress or other torts may address the appellant’s injuries “from interference with her bodily and psychological integrity”, they are “ incapable of addressing the interference with her autonomy that arises from the cumulative effect of the physical and non-physical modes of coercion to which she has been subjected” (Para 160).

The decision represents a groundbreaking development through its recognition that tort law extends to circumstances where harm may not be imminent, physical or direct. As stated at paragraph 182 of the decision:

The new tort of intimate partner violence fills a gap in the common law by properly recognizing that conduct objectively resulting in domination and control of an intimate partner is a qualitatively distinct wrong from those wrongs redressable through existing torts. It is the intimate partnership context that enables the abuser to exert control over their victim. Liability arises because coercive control constitutes an interference with an intimate partner’s autonomy; it is inherently incompatible with an intimate partnership as it renders the partnership unequal and results in dignitary harm, alongside, but distinct from, the physical or psychological harm that can be caused by abuse.

Today’s decision represents a significant step toward closing a longstanding gap in the common law and improving access to justice for survivors of intimate partner violence and family violence.

Under the newly recognized tort, a plaintiff must establish that:

1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;

2. The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and

3. The conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.

The majority decision emphasized that the harm associated with coercive control flows from proof of the wrongful conduct, such that survivors should not be required to prove separate consequential harm once the coercive conduct itself is established.

The full decision can be read here.

The Principles of Tort Law

The decision also reinforces fundamental and core principles of tort law, including corrective justice as “the central animating principle underlying tort law” (para 136). Although the fundamental deprivation of rights perpetrated by the abuser is difficult to remediate, the remedies to which survivors are entitled should seek to put them back in the same position as they were before the partner of conduct started.

The decision further reinforces the need for incremental development of the common law. Such incremental change is necessary to clarify legal principles, resolve an inconsistency or ensure the law is consistent with societal change, though “incrementalism does not invariably favour the flexibility of existing torts”.

The Court clarified the approach for the recognition of a new tort, recognizing a two-step process (paras 83-95):

1.      At the first stage , courts must measure the need for a new tort:

a.      The facts alleged must disclose a wrongful act that offends a recognized legal interest;

b.      Existing remedies must be inadequate;

2.      If the need exists, the novel tort must be a proper response, in light of the role of the courts in the development of tort law

The Court found that the common law must align with the Canadian Charter. The development of a new tort of Intimate Partner Violence is consistent with the values underpinning sections 7 and 15 of the Charter (Para 133).

Seeking justice is one of the greatest devotions, and this case is a beautiful example of what can be achieved through such courageous commitment:

• The woman behind it all, Kuldeep Ahluwalia, started the journey self-represented demonstrating incredible strength.

• The trial judge, Justice Mandhane, recognized that the common law is not static, but must develop in step with society’s evolving understanding of harm and justice. Her decision reflects a principled and courageous acceptance of the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that the law remains capable of responding to lived realities for which redress has long been absent.

• Counsel for Ms. Ahluwalia on appeal (before ONCA: Julie K. Hannaford, Charu Chande, Angela Pagano, Alexi N. Wood, Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw, Brooke Mackenzie, and Nicky (Yujeong) Kim; before the SCC: J K Hannaford Barristers and McCarthy Hansen & Company), recognized the critical importance of supporting survivors of intimate partner violence on their journey towards justice.

• Counsel for all of the intervenors recognized the critical importance of ensuring that the law appropriately recognizes and responds to the lived experiences of survivors of intimate partner violence.

We commend the work of Katie Black, Lucie Atangana and Babacar Faye on this landmark case. Their work on behalf of the RNAO was cited throughout the Court's decision. It is an honour to contribute to such a monumental decision for survivors of intimate partner violence and their loved ones.

RNAO’s factum can be found here.