Intimate partner violence in Ontario is a standalone civil tort. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized it in May 2026, allowing damages for intentional coercive and controlling conduct within an intimate relationship or after it ends.
In May of 2026 the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision creating a new civil cause of action, or tort called “intimate partner violence” or I.P.V. In the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the appeal of a decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal. In this case the trial judge had found that the husband had acted abusively to the wife over their 16 year marriage through physical violence, humiliation, intimidation and conduct intending to inflict emotional distress. It extended to isolation of the wife from family members, mistreatment as a means to pressure for sex and financial control. The court found that the husband’s conduct had coerced and controlled the wife in order to break her will and condition her to obey him from the beginning of the marriage.
As a result, the trial judge found that the husband’s conduct warranted an order for damages in the amount of $150,000.00. To order damages, the trial judge found that there should be a civil remedy creating liability for such conduct and called for the creation of a tort called “family violence.” This decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the court found that existing remedies at law were sufficient, and denied the creation of a new liability claim for family violence. On appeal the award was reduced by $50,000.00. Ms. Ahluwalia proceeded to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, which led to the decision at hand.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the trial judge, but rather than framing the tort as “Family Violence” reframed the new tort as “Intimate Partner Violence.” In the majority decision the court noted that “intimate partner violence operates by undermining the victims ability to make meaningful choices about their life” and “denies an intimate partner of their agency, voice, and status.”
The Supreme Court of Canada found that existing torts such as battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc, dealt with discrete incidents or even patterns, they did not capture the different consequences of coercive control or the pattern of subordination that leads to loss of dignity, autonomy and equality. Previous torts often required very specific incidents or findings, whereas the tort of intimate partner violence could allow for a broader approach.
What must a claimant prove?
Under the tort of intimate partner violence a claimant must establish three elements:
- The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
- The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
- The conduct, objectively, constitutes coercive control.
What conduct counts as coercive control?
In its decision the court provided a list of possible conduct that may constitute intimate partner violence. This includes physical and sexual violence, emotional and psychological abuse including verbal abuse; harassment, humiliation, financial control, stalking, surveillance, isolating behaviour, denying a partner education, employment or recreational opportunities, litigation abuse, and threatening conduct including threatening to harm children or take them away and threatening to commit suicide.
It is important to note that unlike existing torts, the claimant does not have to prove any consequential harm separately as the “domination and control of an intimate partner is a qualitatively distinct wrong.”
The Supreme Court of Canada was careful to provide a warning to future judges not to mischaracterize resistance to domination or all misconduct in a high conflict breakdown as coercive control, noting that mere misconduct or an imbalance of power is not intimate partner violence in the same sense. This leaves much open to debate as to how this will be characterized in future cases, where frequently neither side is without blame.
This new tort will certainly be a challenge for future courts, lawyers and litigants, as it creates a broad definition of what constitutes coercive control and gives very little guidance on how to establish an amount for damages. Notably, in their dissents, justices Côté, Rowe and Jamal noted that “it is not clear what precise behaviour would make out coercive control” and that “since the objective test is focused on a reasonable person’s evaluation of the defendant’s conduct, recovery is allowed even when the plaintiff was not actually coercively controlled and when the plaintiff suffered no consequential harm.”
Notably, Ms. Ahluwalia was awarded $150,000.00 on a somewhat arbitrary basis by the trial judge providing little basis for establishing the amount or basing it on the financial damages suffered by Ms. Ahluwalia. As noted in the SCC dissent, “lower courts will have great difficulty quantifying these damages under these new torts. These serious concerns highlight how creating a new tort in this case represents complex changes to the law with uncertain ramifications.” Ultimately the damages were set at $100,000, which was the amount agreed upon by the parties for the appeal.
Much of the proof of whether intimate partner violence has occurred will often rely on the testimony of the parties or others closely involved and aligned with one side of the couple, rather than independently verifiable documents or third-party evidence. This may lead to increased uncertainty and litigation time as parties will require a trial to prove intimate partner violence or to exonerate themselves.
What this means for fathers
At Loyens Law we are aware of these challenges, as well as the challenges that men and fathers experience in the courtroom. Many litigants will choose to rely on family dysfunction as the basis for an IPV claim as dysfunction is a hallmark of almost every separation. It will be important for litigants to establish both whether IPV has occurred in their own relationships and to be prepared to defend against such a claim in order to differentiate between family dysfunction and intimate partner violence.
It is important to note that the threat of withholding children, can be considered a form of coercive control, and that we frequently see these kinds of threats made against men and fathers. We strongly encourage any father who has experienced this, or any other form of coercive control to speak with us to assist in determining whether intimate partner violence has occurred in your own relationship and what your legal remedies may be.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does intimate partner violence require physical violence?
No. Intimate partner violence in Ontario also covers emotional abuse, financial control, isolation, surveillance and harassment that objectively amount to coercive control.
Can withholding children be coercive control?
Yes. Threats to withhold children can be coercive control, and we frequently see these threats made against fathers.
