In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) customised a new tort of intimate partner violence (IPV) in response to what it described as the “pernicious social ill”[1] of coercive control in intimate relationships. In doing so, the SCC granted family law litigants and survivors of IPV a powerful civil remedy; and practitioners, a comprehensive and structured primer on the advent of novel torts, marking a first in Canadian law.
Although this decision arose in a family law dispute, it is expected to shape the development of tort law well beyond the confines of family law, making it an essential read for all civil litigators. This article focuses on the SCC’s preion governing the evolution of new torts.
Background
The story unfolds along an extraordinary trajectory. In 2022, Ms. Ahluwalia, a self-represented litigant won an 11-day trial in a divorce suit filed by her husband. The trial judge found that Ms. Ahluwalia’s 16-year long marriage had been characterised by a consistent pattern of coercion and control by her husband and was “not just ‘unhappy’ or ‘dysfunctional’; it was violent.”.[2]
As part of her plea, Ms. Ahluwalia sought damages for the physical and mental abuse she had suffered in the marriage. In normal course, her plea for damages would have been part of a separate civil action and considered under existing intentional torts of battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this case, the trial judge, unprompted by either party, took the unusual step of inviting submissions on whether a tort of family violence should be recognised.
Citing the limitations of traditional torts to account for longstanding patterns of violence and coercive behaviour in abusive relationships, the trial judge endorsed a new tort of family violence modelled on the definition of “family violence” in the Divorce Act.[3] The trial judge awarded $50,000 each in general, aggravated and punitive damages ($150,000 in total) both under the new tort and the traditional torts. Mr. Ahluwalia appealed.
The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the lower court on grounds that existing torts already provided adequate remedies to victims of IPV and, in this case, had duly compensated Ms. Ahluwalia. The punitive damages were struck and the total award reduced to $100,000.
Ms. Ahluwalia appealed to the SCC. Her appeal concerned one question alone - whether a new tort of family violence ought to be recognised. Neither party contested the Court of Appeal’s findings or award under the traditional torts. Despite having “won” and been fully compensated, Ms. Ahluwalia found herself as an appellant before the SCC on the question of a new tort, marking yet another unusual turn in her remarkable story.