The New Tort of Intimate Partner Violence: A BC View

Author: SiLaw Group Family Lawyers
Published: Aug 10, 2026

---

On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. A majority of the Court recognized a new civil wrong: the tort of intimate partner violence. The ruling closes a chapter that began in an Ontario divorce case and worked its way through three levels of court. It matters in British Columbia too — both for people who experienced abuse in a past relationship and for people responding to allegations about one.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

The case began as a divorce proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In 2022, the trial judge found that the wife had lived through a sixteen-year pattern of coercion and control. The findings included physical assaults, humiliation, isolation from her family, pressure for sex, and financial control. The trial judge decided that existing torts did not fully capture this pattern, recognized a novel tort of family violence, and awarded $150,000 in damages.

In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed that part of the decision (Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476). By then, the husband accepted that his conduct made him liable under existing torts, such as assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeal held that a new tort was unnecessary because those existing torts, properly applied, could address the harm. It declined to recognize a tort of family violence or coercive control, and it reduced the damages by $50,000 — the punitive portion — leaving an award of $100,000.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. Five of the nine judges, in reasons written by Justice Kasirer, recognized a tort of intimate partner violence. Justice Karakatsanis wrote separate concurring reasons. Three judges dissented, reasoning that the existing torts already justified full compensation for the conduct proven at trial. The total award did not change: the parties agreed not to contest the amount fixed by the Court of Appeal, and the $100,000 now stands as general compensatory damages for the new tort.

What the new tort requires

To succeed, a plaintiff must prove three elements:

1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath.
2. The defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct. The plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant meant to control them — only that the conduct itself was intentional.
3. Viewed objectively, the conduct amounts to coercive control. The question is whether a reasonable person, aware of the full context of the relationship, would see the acts — taken together — as an assertion of control.

The majority listed kinds of conduct capable of amounting to coercive control: physical and sexual violence; emotional and psychological abuse; harassment, humiliation, and denigration; financial control; stalking and surveillance; isolating a partner or denying them access to work, education, or other opportunities; litigation abuse; and threatening conduct, including threats involving children.

The Court also drew a clear line. Dishonesty, infidelity, emotional neglect, and disagreement can end a relationship, but on their own they are not coercive control. An unhappy or high-conflict separation is not the same thing as tortious conduct. That boundary matters as much to a person facing an allegation as to a person raising one.

Why the decision matters in British Columbia

Tort law is common law, and Supreme Court of Canada rulings shape it across the country. British Columbia had a voice in this case: the Attorney General of British Columbia and several BC-based organizations intervened at the hearing. BC courts can now be asked to apply the tort of intimate partner violence in cases here.

BC's Family Law Act already uses a broad definition of family violence — one that includes psychological and emotional abuse and unreasonable restrictions on a family member's financial or personal autonomy — when courts deal with parenting arrangements and protection orders. The new tort operates on a different track: it allows a person to seek monetary compensation, and the Supreme Court confirmed that tort claims of this kind can be advanced within family law proceedings.

Historic abuse and BC's time limits

British Columbia's Limitation Act sets a basic two-year limitation period that runs from the day a claim is discovered. But section 3 of the Act removes limitation periods entirely for certain claims, including:

• claims relating to sexual assault;
• claims relating to misconduct of a sexual nature, where the claimant was a minor when it occurred; and
• claims relating to assault or battery, where the claimant was a minor, or was living in an intimate and personal relationship with — or was in a relationship of dependency with — the person responsible.

The Act states that these exemptions apply whether or not the claim was once governed by a limitation period. In plain terms: where a civil claim is based on physical or sexual violence within an intimate relationship, the passage of time — even many years — does not, by itself, bar the claim in BC.

One question remains open. The new tort reaches beyond physical violence to patterns of coercive control. Whether a claim framed purely as coercive control, without assault or battery, falls within those exemptions is something BC courts have not yet decided. Timing rules can be decisive, so it is worth getting advice about them early — whichever side of a claim you are on.

Read the decisions

• Supreme Court of Canada decision, 2026 SCC 16
• The Supreme Court's plain-language case in brief
• Ontario Court of Appeal decision, 2023 ONCA 476
• BC Limitation Act on BC Laws

Where to go from here

If you are considering raising past abuse in a family law matter — or you need to respond to such a claim — both timing and framing matter. Learn how we approach family violence & protection matters, or Book a free consultation to talk through your situation.

This post is legal information, not legal advice.