On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada created the tort of intimate partner violence as a distinct legal basis for survivors to seek financial compensation separate from family law entitlements and other torts like sexual assault and battery.

‍

This landmark decision in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia establishes a new legal pathway for individuals to sue for patterns of coercive and long-term abuse that existing civil claims, like assault or battery, may fail to adequately address.

‍

To succeed in a claim under this new tort, a plaintiff must typically demonstrate a pattern of behavior within an intimate partnership and prove three elements:

1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
2. The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
3. That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.

‍

At paragraph 5, the Court held “…Harm flows from proof of the intentional wrong because coercive control directly interfered with the plaintiff’s legal interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality within an intimate partnership. The extent of that harm may warrant greater or lesser quantum of damages, depending on the circumstances”.

‍

This decision has broader implications for survivors of sexual abuse generally. Historically, most civil sexual abuse claims pleaded the torts sexual assault and battery. In summary, these claims require a plaintiff to prove either non-consensual physical contact of a sexual nature or intentional creation of fear or apprehension of imminent sexual contact. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove consent, either express or implied.

‍

Survivors and trauma-informed practitioners know that abuse is often larger than a single incident. Grooming, coercion, manipulation, dependency, threats and psychological domination can also shape a survivor’s ability to consent, resist, report, or leave. Those harms are real, often deeply relational and ongoing and are not necessarily captured in the analysis of the torts of sexual assault and battery.

‍

By recognizing patterns of coercive and degrading conduct as actionable in their own right, the SCC has signaled a growing understanding that sexual abuse cannot always be reduced to discrete events viewed in isolation.

‍

This decision creates a distinct civil pathway for survivors to seek compensation for harms that have too often been minimized or misunderstood.

‍

The history of the decision is important, because the initial claim was advanced as a tort of family violence, a much broader tort.

‍

The trial decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice initially created this broader tort of family violence.

‍

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, suggesting existing torts like assault and battery were sufficient to address the matter.

‍

The SCC reversed the ONCA decision, but narrowed the scope of the tort to intimate partner violence. The SCC pointed out the unique nature of romantic relationships and the vulnerability and harm that can flow from them. The Court also found the tort of family violence to be too broad.

‍

The applicable limitation period has not yet been determined and may be addressed in future either by the courts and/or through legislative reform.

‍

If you are a survivor of intimate partner violence, you have options. Taking the first step to come forward can be difficult, but our trauma-informed legal team is here to discuss your options and support you without judgment when you are ready.