.png){kind=logo}
A New Civil Tort
On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026SCC 16, recognizing — by a majority — a new civil tort of intimate partner violence (“IPV”). For the first time in Canadian common law, survivors of domestic abuse have a dedicated cause of action that captures not just discrete incidents of physical violence, but the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct that defines abusive relationships.
This is a significant development in Canadian tort law, and one with practical consequences that every litigator, family lawyer, and survivor should understand. It is also a development that fundamentally changes the choice a survivor faces when deciding how — and where — to seek redress.
The plaintiff, Ms. Ahluwalia, had been married for 16 years in a relationship marked by physical assault, emotional abuse, intimidation, and financial control. When the marriage broke down, she brought a claim for damages against her former husband as part of the family law proceedings. The trial judge, Justice Mandhane of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, recognized a new tort of “family violence” and awarded $150,000 in damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed, finding existing torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were adequate, and reduced the award to $100,000.
In theSupreme Court of Canada, Justice Kasirer writing for the majority, declined to create a broad tort of “family violence” applicable to all family members, but went further than the Court of Appeal by recognizing a narrower, targeted tort of intimate partner violence. As the majority put it, intimate partner violence is “a pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law,” and existing torts simply cannot capture the cumulative harm caused by sustained patterns of coercion and control.
To establish liability under the new tort of intimate partner violence, a plaintiff must prove:
1. Relationship: The abusive conduct arose during, or in the aftermath of, an intimate partnership. The Court adopted a flexible, substance-over-form definition — sexual relations, cohabitation, and marriage are not required. What matters is whether the relationship reflects “social, financial, and affective interdependence.”
2. Intent: The defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct. Critically, the plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant intended to control or coerce — only that the acts themselves were intentional.
3. Coercive Control: Assessed objectively, the conduct constitutes coercive control — conduct that limits a partner’s dignity, autonomy, and equality.
The Court provided guidance on the kinds of conduct that can satisfy the third element, including:
• Physical and sexual violence
• Emotional and psychological abuse
• Harassment, humiliation, and denigration
• Financial control
• Stalking and surveillance
• Behaviour that isolates a partner from family, friends, or supports
• Litigation abuse
• Threatening conduct, including threats to harm or remove children, or threats of suicide
One of the most important features of the new tort is that proof of the wrongful conduct itself establishes the harm. A plaintiff is not required to lead separate evidence of consequential injury (such as a diagnosable psychiatric condition) to succeed. This is a meaningful departure from existing intentional torts, where survivors often had to relive their abuse through medical and psychological evidence to clear evidentiary hurdles. Once the three elements are made out, liability follows, and damages are assessed to reflect the seriousness of the breach.
The court has not fixed a limitation period — a point that will need to be worked out in lower courts and, in British Columbia, against the framework of the Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c. 13.
The Court of Canada released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026SCC 16, recognizing a new civil tort of intimate partner
In practical terms, we can expect to see civil actions brought as Notices of Civil Claim in the BC Supreme Court (or, depending on quantum, in provincial courts in limited circumstances)advancing the IPV tort, often in combination with related causes of action. Anticipated claim profiles include:
• Standalone IPV claims by survivors who have already concluded family law proceedings — or who never had family law issues to litigate (for example, common-law partners who did not pursue property or support claims). With no fixed limitation period yet established, claims arising from older relationships may now be on the table.
• IPV claims pleaded alongside existing intentional torts — assault, battery, sexual battery, intentional infliction of mental — assault, battery, sexual battery, intentional infliction of mentalsuffering, false imprisonment, and breach of privacy. While the IPV tort eliminates the need to shoehorn coercive patterns into the discrete-incident framework of these torts, pleading in the alternative will remain prudent.
• Claims joined with family law proceedings, where procedurally permissible. This will create complex case management questions, including whether the civil and family components are heard together, sequentially, or separately.
• Claims for general, aggravated, and punitive damages, with the trial-level award of $150,000 (later $100,000) is only an initial reference point. Quantum will be developed on a case-by-case basis in the years ahead.
The tort also opens the door to civil actions that may proceed independently of the criminal process. A survivor whose abuser was never charged, or was acquitted, may still succeed in tort on the lower civil standard of proof — a balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
For survivors weighing how to seek redress, the forum matters as much as the cause of action. The privacy implications of a civil tort claim differ sharply from those of a family law proceeding.
In British Columbia, family proceedings — whether brought under the federal Divorce Act or the provincial Family Law Act — carry significant statutory and procedural privacy protections:
• Restricted access to court files. Under the BC Supreme Court Family Rules and the BC Supreme Court’s Policy on Access to the Court Record, access to family law registry files is restricted by statute. Generally, only the parties, their counsel, and those authorized in writing may access materials.
• Publication restrictions. Section 3(6) of the Provincial Court Act, RSBC 1996, c. 379, prohibits publication of anything that would reasonably be likely to disclose the identity of a child or party in family or children’s matters before the Provincial Court.
• The implied undertaking of confidentiality. Documents produced through discovery — financial disclosure, examinations for discovery, interrogatories — may only be used for the proceeding in which they were produced. Misuse is contempt of court.
• Procedural culture. Family law in BC is structured around mediation, judicial case conferences, settlement, and the protection of children’s interests. Even contested hearings often produce sealed or redacted records.
The practical result: an individual pursuing relief under the Family Law Act operates within a system designed to keep the most sensitive financial, medical, and personal information out of public view.
A civil tort claim looks very different. Civil proceedings in the BC Supreme Court operate under the open court principle, and the contrast is stark:
• The Notice of Civil Claim is public. Once filed, it forms part of the public court record. Any member of the public can attend the registry, pay the search fee, and read it.
• The Response to Civil Claim is public. The defendant’s denials, admissions, and version of events are equally part of the record.
• Affidavits and exhibits filed in support of applications become part of the court record and are presumptively accessible to the public, absent a sealing order or other statutory and are presumptivelyaccessible to the public, absent a sealing order or other statutoryrestriction.
• Pleadings and reasons for judgment are routinely indexed on CanLII, BCSC’s website, and commercial reporting services. A judgment becomes a permanent, searchable artifact of public record, with the parties named.
• The trial is held in open court. Members of the public and the media may attend and report on what they hear.
Sealing orders, publication bans, and the use of initials are available, but they are exceptional. Following Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, an applicant for confidentiality protections must satisfy a stringent three-part test demonstrating a serious risk to an important public interest. The default is openness.
A person who pursues only family law relief in BC can expect that her financial disclosure, medical history, parenting concerns, and personal narrative remain largely shielded from public scrutiny. A person who advances an IPV tort claim — alone or in conjunction with family proceedings — should expect that the allegations, the abuser’s response, the evidentiary record, and the court’s findings will be publicly accessible and reportable, unless a court orders otherwise.
For counsel, the decision to pursue an IPV claim must be made with eyes open to these realities, and with a candid conversation with the client about:
• whether he/she is prepared for the proceedings (and her/his allegations) to be in the public domain;
• whether he/she wishes to seek a publication ban, anonymization, or sealing order, and the prospects of obtaining one;
• the interaction with any concurrent or future family law, criminal, or protection order proceedings;
• the implied undertaking rule and the careful management of documents produced in one stream that may be relevant to another;
• the limitation period analysis under the Limitation Act — which, given the Supreme Court’s silence on this point, is a live and unsettled question;
• the practical realities of recovery, including the defendant’s ability to pay any judgment.
Ahluwalia will reshape Canadian family and civil litigation in ways that will only become clear over the next several years. We can expect early test cases to address the limitation period question, the interaction between the new tort and existing intentional torts, the appropriate range of damages, and procedural questions about case management when civil and family proceedings run in parallel. Insurance implications — including whether homeowner’s or umbrella policies might respond to coercive control claims — will also need to be sorted out.
What is already clear is that person with a claim of intimate partner violence in British Columbia now have a meaningful new tool. Used thoughtfully, and with appropriate counsel on the forum-and-privacy trade-offs, it may provide redress that family law remedies, on their own, simply could not.
This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Anyone considering a claim under the new tort of intimate partner violence — or defending one —should consult experienced litigation counsel about their particular circumstances. At DT Law, we can provide legal assistance based on your specific facts and circumstances, and their application to the new civil tort.
Family Law
Contact us today to schedule your initial consultation with one of our lawyers.
Your trusted legal partner, resolving complex matters with expertise and care.
.png)
