May 19, 2026

In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the tort of intimate partner violence.

At trial, the Court recognized a new tort of family violence, designed as an “umbrella tort” to capture the full pattern of abuse in a family context in response to a claim for tort damages arising from a 16‑year pattern of intimate partner abuse. A spouse alleged extensive physical, emotional, and financial abuse throughout the marriage. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned that approach stating that existing torts were sufficient. The Supreme Court has provided a nuanced answer that will shape the intersection of family law and tort litigation moving forward.

This new tort acknowledges that intimate partner violence often involves a sustained course of coercive, controlling, and psychologically harmful behaviour, rather than isolated incidents. As a result, survivors who have experienced such patterns of abuse can now seek compensation from their abuser for the full scope of the harm suffered.

 The Legal Test: Coercive Control and Autonomy

The majority’s definition of intimate partner violence is broad, stating “Intimate partner violence is a pernicious social ill… Best understood, it is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury, but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy.”

 The Elements of The New Tort Are:

• Intimate relationship: The parties must be (or have been) intimate partners, meaning married, common‑law, or otherwise in a conjugal relationship.
• Intentional, and often a pattern of, abusive conduct:
  • The Court lists examples:
    • physical violence
    • isolation tactics
    • manipulation and humiliation
    • surveillance and monitoring
    • economic abuse and financial control
    • sexual coercion
    • intimidation and threats
• Objective coercive control: The conduct must include either coercion and control of the plaintiff, depriving them of autonomy, security, and related financial or relational losses; or may be founded in violence by an intimate partner that caused physical or psychological harm. This conduct, an expansion compared to other torts such as intentional infliction of mental distress, is the conceptual center of the tort.

Put another way, this is a specifically relational tort where the wrong is defined by how one partner systematically dominates another within an intimate relationship. The Court specifies at paragraph 97 that “This is not to suggest that family violence against children, elders or other family members is not independently actionable in tort, but simply that the interests within the intimate partner setting respond to its unique relational dynamic that reflects conjugal intimacy.”

Why This Matters in Practice

For survivors, the new tort offers the advantage that instead of pleading a messy bundle of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental distress that don’t fully address the harm caused, a survivor can frame their case around the pattern of intimate partner violence itself. Economic abuse, intimidation, manipulation, humiliation, isolation, surveillance, and sexual coercion are expressly named as actionable; a significant shift in comparison to previous torts that sought to address this type of abuse. The Court states at paragraph 192 that “The emphasis on pattern, however, does not mean that only multiple acts of abuse qualify as coercive control. Rather, it calls on judges to be attuned to the context in which a wrongful act or acts occurred, including the power dynamics of the intimate partnership and any subtle acts that may appear innocuous in isolation.”

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has applied the (now overturned) Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia in Colenutt v Colenutt, 2023 ABKB 562, and Lavoie v Lavoie, 2025 ABKB 79, where the Court states:

In summary, I find that it is appropriate to apply the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ahluwalia, for family law litigants in Alberta who wish to advance a claim for damages arising from family violence, including coercive control. They may proceed based on the current tort laws related to assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This type of action cannot be commenced under the Divorce Act, under the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, or under the Family Property Act, RSA 2000, c F-4.7. It is a separate cause of action requiring a separate action to be commenced. As in this case, an application can be made to consolidate actions or have them tried together, and those applications will be decided on their merits. If the family/property actions are tried with the tort action, then the family/property claims should be determined first, with the claims in the tort action being considered second (Ahluwalia, para 136).

The facts of each case will determine whether the new tort of intimate partner violence is best advanced under a separate action that can then be consolidated or tried together with family/property issues, or whether a tort action may be heard separately or before the family/property issues are determined. How a tort claim interacts with a family law claim will also inform whether plaintiffs choose to pursue a tort claim before the Alberta Court of Justice or before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. 

Limitation Periods: Courts and Legislatures

The trial judge determined that no limitation period applied as the claim was “based on an alleged assault while the parties were in an ‘intimate relationship’ and/or in a relationship of dependency” and relied on the Ontario Limitations Act exemption on the application of limitation periods to proceedings based on a sexual assault. 

In Alberta, the Limitations Act does not apply to claims that include those of sexual assault or battery, or assault, battery, or misconduct of a sexual nature involving people in an intimate relationship. Therefore, depending on the nature of the claim and the jurisdiction, current limitations legislation may or may not restrict when intimate partner violence claims may be advanced. The Supreme Court addresses the issue of uncertainty around limitation periods, stating at paragraph 158 that “Extending existing exemptions from limitation periods to the new tort may require legislative action, as was done for civil claims of assault or battery arising from intimate partnerships.”

Conclusion

If you are considering advancing a claim related to intimate partner violence for yourself or on behalf of a client, Ahluwalia changes the conversation. Intimate partner violence can now be plead directly, alongside, or instead of traditional intentional torts; and pleadings can now frame evidence around coercive control and autonomy, not just injuries and incidents, and damages that reflect the cumulative, long-term nature of the abuse can be sought.

If you have questions about claims for intimate partner violence, please contact any of the Civil Litigators at Carbert Waite LLP.

Author

Dylan Snowdon

Partner
T: 403.705.3632
E: [email protected]

View Profile