Written By: Kate Hunter, Associate & Alicia Abbott, Summer Student
6 Minute Read
Introduction
On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia. In doing so, the Court changed the personal injury landscape by recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence and creating an important pathway to justice for survivors.
Personal injury law is built on the idea of corrective justice: putting an injured person, as much as possible, back in the position they would have been in if the wrong had never happened. But until now, the law did not fully capture the ongoing harms intimate partner violence can cause to a survivor’s dignity, autonomy, and equality. Survivors were often left without meaningful compensation unless their partner’s conduct could be squeezed into existing torts that tend to focus on specific incidents and immediate harm.
Under this new tort, civil damages can now better reflect the full reality of intimate partner violence by treating the pattern of abuse as one connected wrong, rather than a series of isolated events.
Facts
This legal development arose from Ms. Ahluwalia’s claim for civil damages for the abuse she suffered from her husband. She married Mr. Ahluwalia in India in 1999 and moved to Canada in 2001 with their first child. The family went on to experience some financial strain and their relationship deteriorated. The parties permanently separated in 2016. In 2021, Ms. Ahluwalia amended her answer to her husband’s divorce application to include a claim for damages.
At trial, Justice Renu Mandhane described the relationship as a “16-year pattern of coercion and control.” Ms. Ahluwalia had experienced physical assault, humiliation, intimidation, isolation from family, mistreatment used to pressure sex, and financial control. She was awarded $150,000 in damages for what the trial judge called the “novel tort of family violence.” On appeal, Mr. Ahluwalia’s liability was upheld, but the new tort was rejected and the damages award was reduced to $100,000.
Issue
At the Supreme Court, Justice Kasirer, writing for the majority, framed the central question as the proper basis for liability in tort. While the parties had already agreed on $100,000 in damages, they disagreed about the legal foundation for that award.
Put simply, the Court had to decide whether existing torts could adequately capture the cumulative nature of domestic abuse, or whether the law needed to recognize a distinct tort of intimate partner violence.
Key Takeaways
The Court described intimate partner violence as “coercive and controlling conduct that undermines autonomy in other insidious ways.” This can include tactics like isolation, manipulation, surveillance, economic abuse, and intimidation, all aimed at controlling or trapping a partner. With that understanding, the majority held that existing intentional torts – such as battery or assault – do not do enough in the context of intimate partner violence because they focus on individual incidents rather than the cumulative harm that often defines abuse in intimate relationships. The Court recognized the new tort as an incremental evolution of the common law and as a way to fill an important remedial gap.
To prove the tort of intimate partner violence, a plaintiff must establish three elements:
- 1: The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath.
- 2: The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct.
- 3: The conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.
Once the wrongful conduct is proven, liability follows directly. In other words, plaintiffs do not have to prove a separate consequential harm. The Court also made clear that even a single act of physical violence may be enough if it changes the relationship in a way that is meant to control or entrap the partner.
The Court found that Ms. Ahluwalia met all three requirements. The abuse she experienced was not only physically and psychologically harmful; it was also aimed at bringing her “to heel.”  The Court adjusted the lower court’s award to confirm that the full $100,000 in damages was awarded under the new tort of intimate partner violence. In doing so, it recognized that subtle manipulation and cumulative control can be distinct civil wrongs that deserve their own remedy.
Distinguishing Intentional Torts from Intimate Partner Violence
One important part of the decision is how the Court distinguished existing intentional torts from the new tort of intimate partner violence. For example, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had gone too far by stretching the tort of assault beyond its ordinary logic. Assault depends on the idea of imminent harm, which makes it better suited to discrete incidents. But imminence does not capture many forms of intimate partner violence, where the harm often builds over time.
Conclusion
Ahluwalia is an important step forward for survivors of intimate partner violence seeking access to justice through personal injury law. Survivors now have a clearer civil path to seek compensation for the full scope of the harm they have experienced.
The decision also reflects a move toward more trauma-informed lawyering in personal injury cases. Rather than asking survivors to “translate” their trauma into rigid legal categories that do not fit their reality, the law now allows courts to look at the relationship as a whole. This more practical approach can make the path to recovery easier to navigate and can help survivors seek compensation that better reflects what they endured.
The new tort also gives courts more room to address “invisible injuries” that have historically been difficult to prove under traditional tort frameworks. Survivors seeking damages for non-physical trauma often had to rely on intentional infliction of emotional distress, which carries a high evidentiary burden and requires a “visible and provable illness.” Under the new tort, harm to a person’s dignity, autonomy, and equality can be recognized in its own right, even if it does not result in a physical or psychiatric diagnosis.
Ahluwalia brings the promise of corrective justice closer to reality for survivors of intimate partner violence. With a more holistic and trauma-informed approach, lawyers can better translate survivors’ experiences into claims that support meaningful compensation.
