The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a new tort called the tort of intimate partner violence. The Court has drawn a clear line: intimate partner violence is not just misconduct—it is a distinct legal wrong. By recognizing this new tort, the law now acknowledges the lived reality of abuse as a pattern of control that erodes autonomy over time.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant shift in Canadian law. It acknowledges that intimate partner violence is not simply a series of incidents, but a pattern of conduct that undermines a person’s fundamental sense of self and independence. By recognizing a new tort, the Court has aligned the law more closely with that reality while still leaving room for further development in future cases.
Ontario Supreme Court Decision
In Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, the trial judge was faced with issues in a family law dispute relating to spousal support, child support, property division, and damages for what the mother characterized as long-term coercive physical, emotional and financial abuse. The lower court determined that it was appropriate under the circumstances to recognize a novel tort, the tort of family violence.
The trial judge concluded that the nature of family violence warranted the recognition of a new tort. In particular, the trial judge found that existing torts, such as battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, did not adequately capture the cumulative and ongoing nature of abuse in intimate relationships.
The new tort would address the gap in the framework of existing recognized categories of torts. It would also reflect the reality that abuse in a relationship is often not a series of disconnected incidents but rather, a sustained course of conduct that creates fear, dependency and loss of autonomy over time.
With this decision, the Court highlighted broader concerns of access to justice. Without a unified claim for family violence, a victim would be required to pursue multiple separate tort claims, each tied to specific acts, which may fail to capture the broader harm experienced. The recognition of a single, umbrella‑type tort was seen as a more realistic way to address the lived experience of family violence.
The trial decision signaled both a legal and conceptual shift. It reframed intimate partner abuse as a continuous and relational wrong, rather than a checklist of individual acts.
Ontario Court of Appeal Decision
Ahluwalia then reached the Court of Appeal . While the Court of Appeal had no difficulty in recognizing that the Plaintiff had experienced serious abuse, it declined to endorse the creation of a new tort of family violence.
The Court of Appeal’s reasoning was that courts should only recognize new torts where they are truly necessary. In the Court’s view, that threshold was not met here. The Court concluded that existing torts, particularly assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were sufficient to address both individual incidents and broader patterns of abuse.
The Court also rejected the idea that existing torts were limited to isolated events. It emphasized that courts are already capable of considering repeated conduct when assessing both liability and damages.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the creation of a new tort was unnecessary because there was no true “gap” in the law. While it upheld liability under existing torts, it set aside the recognition of the tort of family violence and reduced the overall damages award.
Supreme Court of Canada Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal. While the Supreme Court rejected the broad tort of family violence, it nevertheless concluded that the common law needed to evolve by recognizing a new, more focused cause of action: the tort of intimate partner violence.
The Three- Part Test
The Supreme Court of Canada articulated a three-part test for establishing this new tort. The elements of the tort are:
- The parties were in an intimate relationship;
- There was intentional conduct and the Court identified exampled such as isolation tactics, surveillance, and sexual coercion, amongst others; and,
- The impugned conduct, viewed as a whole, amounted to a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour.
This test intentionally shifts the focus away from isolated incidents and toward the overall pattern of behavior. A single act may not be enough on its own to trigger the new tort, but when viewed cumulatively, conduct could amount to a legally recognizable wrong.
Why the Court Recognized a New Tort
The Supreme Court focused on a key fundamental insight: intimate partner violence is qualitatively different from the harms addressed by traditional torts.
Historically, tort law has been structured around individual acts: an assault, a threat, or a specific instance of emotional harm. The Court recognized that this framework does not align with how abuse actually occurs in many relationships. Intimate partner violence is often a sustained campaign of control that unfolds over time and affects every aspect of a person’s life.
The Court accepted that forcing victims to break their experiences into discrete tort claims misrepresents the nature of the harm. It risks trivializing the reality that abuse is cumulative and relational, not episodic.
The Court clarified why existing causes of action were insufficient to address the issue.
First, traditional torts focus on incidents rather than patterns. Even where courts can consider repeated conduct, the legal structure still requires plaintiffs to fit their experiences into predefined categories that may not reflect the full scope of the harm.
Second, existing torts tend to emphasize specific types of injury, such as physical harm or a “visible and provable illness.” This can make it difficult to capture harms that are primarily psychological, relational, and cumulative.
Third, the Court acknowledged that intimate partner violence often involves conduct that may not be independently actionable but becomes harmful through its repetition and context. For example, surveillance, isolation, or financial restrictions might not be tortious on their own but together, they can erode a person’s autonomy in profound ways.
In short, the new tort recognizes a different kind of wrong: not just harmful acts, but a sustained pattern of domination that reshapes the victim’s life.
The Supreme Court notable declined to adopt the broader concept of “family violence” , deciding that this formulation was too expansive because it could apply to a wide range of family relationships with very different dynamics. By confining the new tort to intimate partner relationships, the Supreme Court struck a careful balance. The Court sought to address a real gap in the law while avoiding an overly broad tort that could create uncertainty.
Alberta Applications and Considerations
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Courts in Alberta have contemplated both the Ontario Court of Appeal and trial decision.
In Colenutt v Colenutt, 2023 ABKB 562, Ms. Colenutt brought an amendment application seeking to add the tort of family violence following the trial decision in Ahluwalia. As the decision was under appeal, the courts and the parties agreed to stay the decision until the Court of Appeal released their decision. Ultimately, Justice Yungwirth followed the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, finding that claimants must proceed under the tort laws of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He was not willing to allow a new novel tort of family violence to be considered in this case, as the existing torts were sufficient to address the harms suffered by the Plaintiff.
Alberta’s courts have contemplated similar issues, including the impact of intimate partner violence. In ES v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739, the Court of King’s Bench recognized the new tort of “public disclosure of private facts” in Alberta. Of note, the Plaintiff in this case also received a judgment for assault, battery, sexual assault, intentional infliction of mental distress, and breach of confidence. While the test for public disclosure of private facts does not require the parties to be in an intimate partner relationship, it is perhaps unsurprising that many of these non-consensual disclosures of intimate images or private facts are perpetrated by an intimate partner (as was the case in Shillington). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ahluwalia will assist in advancing protections and recourse such as those provided in Shillington.
Takeaway
Ahluwalia means that recourse against abusive conduct within the context of an intimate relationship can be more cleanly encapsulated in a single tort. Specifically, it is likely that survivors will no longer have to argue about whether certain torts or certain causes of action should not be recognized in “family” situations. The Supreme Court’s decision acknowledges that intimate partner violence is not simply a series of incidents, but a pattern of conduct that undermines a person’s fundamental sense of self and independence.
DWF is a leading practitioner in tort-based litigation. Our litigation team is experienced and regularly handles all manner of tort claims. Please do not hesitate to contact us about the expertise we provide clients in this area of practice.