Supreme Court opens new legal avenue for victims of intimate partner violence to seek damages

Open this photo in gallery:

The Supreme Court’s decision could make it easier for people who suffer wide-ranging abuse in an intimate partner relationship to win cash compensation in the civil courts.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

In a landmark judgment in the realm of family law, the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday created a new legal basis for people to seek damages for alleged intimate partner violence in relationships marred by coercive control.

The decision could make it easier for people who suffer wide-ranging abuse in an intimate partner relationship to win cash compensation in the civil courts. But in a sharp dissent, a minority of the top court judges warned the ruling upends the established legal landscape and will stoke confusion in the lower courts.

“Intimate partner violence is a pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer on behalf of the majority, including Chief Justice Richard Wagner, in favour of forging new legal territory.

Justice Kasirer said such violence isn’t confined to physical or psychological injury but includes a range of tactics that encompass the concept of coercive control. This includes “isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation.”

The ruling is a victory for advocates who have long argued that coercive control needs to be better recognized by the justice system.

How Bailey’s Law and Bill C-16 target intimate partner violence and avoid overlap

The case focused on a couple in Brampton and the breakdown of their marriage. Kuldeep Ahluwalia, a Punjabi woman, and Amrit Ahluwalia ended up in court in 2016 after they separated. They had met and married in 1999 in India and came to Canada in the early 2000s.

Mr. Ahluwalia began abusing Ms. Ahluwalia near the start of their marriage, according to records filed at the Supreme Court. There were three major physical assaults over the years. Mr. Ahluwalia at times isolated Ms. Ahluwalia from her family in India, restricted her from making friends and controlled the family finances.

Kuldeep Ahluwalia recalled how she didn’t have the help she needed during the hard years of her marriage. “There was no support,” she said in an interview on Friday after the Supreme Court judgment landed. “It was always: ‘Be quiet.’”

In court, she was also alone at first, without a lawyer as a self-represented litigant. She was struck by a realization. “It’s better to fight and lose than not fight at all,” she remembered thinking.

“That’s when the courage came to me,” Ms. Ahluwalia said.

Quebec tables bill allowing people to obtain domestic violence history of partners

In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded her $150,000 and – most notably on the legal front – created a new tort of “family violence” to encompass the abuse Ms. Ahluwalia endured.

A tort is a legal term for the basis to sue for damages in civil, rather than criminal, court. Long-established torts include harms such as assault and battery.

It is rare, however, for any court to create a new tort.

In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision, saying a new tort was unnecessary and reducing the damages to $100,000.

On Friday, the Supreme Court took a new direction. The question on the table wasn’t the damages but whether a new tort was necessary.

The Supreme Court said yes, but rejected the lower court’s tort of family violence.

The top court instead created a new tort of intimate partner violence, focused specifically on what happened to Ms. Ahluwalia during her marriage. Justice Kasirer noted that the law evolves incrementally but said there are times, such as this case, when the courts must “fill the gap in the law.”

He said existing torts were inadequate to cover what happened to Ms. Ahluwalia during the marriage.

“The husband’s domination and grip over the wife remained a defining characteristic of their relationship,” wrote Justice Kasirer.

The top court long grappled with the Ahluwalia case. The hearing took place in February, 2025, and the 15-month span to deliberate and produce the judgment ranks among the longest in the court’s history.

The ruling includes the main majority judgment from five judges, a concurrence from Justice Andromache Karakatsanis that in general agreed with the majority, and a dissent written by Justice Mahmud Jamal that included Justices Suzanne Côté and Malcolm Rowe. The entire package runs almost 75,000 words, the length of a novel.

Justice Jamal’s dissent was particularly sharp compared with the mostly polite tone of dissents at Canada’s Supreme Court. He called intimate partner violence an epidemic and said the justice system must respond with both compassion and legal principles. The judge concluded existing torts were “fully capable” to provide compensation to Ms. Ahluwalia.

He emphasized the “need for judicial restraint” and wrote: “Recognizing a new tort can entail a radical shift in the law that is better left to a legislature.”

He warned that a new tort of intimate partner violence could spark confusion in the lower court. He called the work of the majority “complex and unprecedented” and said it will create “significant complications for plaintiffs seeking compensation for intimate partner violence.”

Geoffrey Carpenter, counsel for Mr. Ahluwalia, said the ruling will profoundly affect family law.

“How it is applied by lower courts in the coming years will be a significant focus,” Mr. Carpenter said Friday.

The British Columbia government welcomed the new tort of intimate partner violence. B.C., and the federal government, had both supported a new tort of family violence.

“The recognition of a tort for intimate partner violence is transformative,” B.C. Attorney-General Niki Sharma said.

Mary-Jo Maur, an associate law professor at Queen’s University, said the ruling was the culmination of years of advocacy. The majority ruling cited her work.

She had also practised family law for several decades. She recalled trying to convince judges in court about the seriousness of coercive control, how mental violence was as deleterious as physical violence.

“I felt like I was shouting into the void,” Prof. Maur said.

Julie Hannaford, counsel for Ms. Ahluwalia, said the Supreme Court’s specific recognition of rights within an intimate partner relationship was a key part of the ruling.

“I was moved to tears by the recognition by Justice Kasirer of the fundamental right to dignity and equality and autonomy,” Ms. Hannaford said.

Angela Pagano, another lawyer working for Ms. Ahluwalia, said the impact will be significant for people who allege intimate partner violence: “It’s going to make it so much easier for survivors to tell their stories in court.”