Coercive Control Is Now a Tort: Ahluwalia in BC

By Sandy Sihota, SiLaw Group Family Lawyers & Mediation, Surrey, British Columbia

Published: May 2026 | Updated: August 5, 2026 | Read Time: 5 min read

---

What the case was about

The Supreme Court of Canada's May 15, 2026 decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, recognized a new common law tort of intimate partner violence as a civil cause of action targeting coercive and controlling conduct within intimate relationships.

The plaintiff sought recognition of a sustained pattern of abuse extending beyond isolated physical violence incidents. She wanted the law to acknowledge the cumulative harm from coercive control and psychological damage over many years. The trial judge recognized a broad "family violence" tort and awarded damages alongside family law relief. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld liability under existing torts but rejected creating anything new. The Supreme Court ultimately answered affirmatively that Canadian law needed a new tort.

The majority's answer: yes, but a narrower one

Justice Kasirer, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal in part and recognized a new tort—deliberately narrower than the trial judge's version.

The reasoning begins with the premise that "tort law has to be capable of responding to the harm it is meant to address." An incident-by-incident liability model fails to capture intimate partner violence because the defining harm feature is patterned and cumulative nature. It operates through coercion, control, and gradual autonomy erosion. Breaking such experience into discrete assaults misdescribes the wrong and risks undercompensation.

Existing torts remain available for particular incidents but were never designed to capture relational and systemic abuse character. This gap justified an incremental common law step forward.

Importantly, the Court rejected the trial judge's broader "family violence" tort as overbroad and imprecise, sweeping in diverse family relationships with different dynamics. The new tort is tethered specifically to the intimate partnership context—the setting producing particular vulnerability, dependency, and power imbalance enabling coercive control.

The three elements

A plaintiff must establish:

1. That the abusive conduct arose within an intimate partner relationship or its aftermath;

2. That the defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and

3. That the conduct, assessed objectively, amounted to coercive control.

The tort reaches both physical and non-physical abuse. Psychological control, financial control, isolation, and intimidation can qualify where forming part of a sustained pattern.

Notably, a plaintiff does not require proving separate consequential harm. The majority treated harm as flowing from the wrongful conduct itself: coercive control constitutes serious dignity, autonomy, and equality interference, and once the three elements are established, liability follows. Damages must meaningfully respond to the breach's seriousness.

The Court found Ms. Ahluwalia had established all three elements.

Where the Court divided

Justice Karakatsanis, concurring, would not have confined the tort to cases proving coercive control.

Justices Jamal, Côté, and Rowe dissented and would have dismissed the appeal. In their view, the plaintiff had already received full compensation under existing torts, which they considered capable of addressing both single acts and abuse patterns. They worried the new tort introduces uncertainty and may complicate access to justice—a concern worth taking seriously given how many survivors navigate the system without counsel.

The bigger picture: a new framework for novel torts

Ahluwalia matters beyond family law. New torts are rare in Canada, and the majority used this opportunity to consolidate the test for recognizing them. Courts should ask whether facts disclose a wrongful act offending a recognized private law interest (or one gaining legal acceptance); whether existing torts and remedies inadequately capture the wrong; and, if so, whether the new tort can be formulated narrowly enough to fill that gap without overstepping the judiciary's incremental role.

Novel tort recognition must remain rare and cautious. Practitioners in commercial and civil litigation will cite this framework for years, well outside the family context.

What this means in British Columbia

A few practical observations for clients and colleagues:

This is a separate claim, not a family law remedy. Damages for intimate partner violence constitute a civil claim. In B.C., that means the Supreme Court—the Provincial Court lacks jurisdiction to award tort damages. If in Provincial Court on parenting and support, a damages claim requires a separate proceeding.

It sits alongside, not instead of, existing protections. The Family Law Act already defines family violence broadly, including psychological and emotional abuse and coercion, and requires courts to consider its impact when making parenting orders. Protection orders under Part 9 remain the immediate safety tool. The new tort adds a compensatory remedy; it does not replace any existing protections. Family violence can also matter outside family law — see our related post on breaking a rental lease where there is violence under BC's tenancy rules.

Evidence practice will shift. The tort is built around pattern, not incident. That rewards contemporaneous records—messages, banking history, journals, medical notes, third-party observations—assembled to show a course of conduct over time rather than worst-day highlight reels.

Timing questions are unsettled. B.C.'s Limitation Act removes limitation periods for certain assault and battery claims where the parties were in an intimate or dependent relationship. How that provision applies to this new tort remains unresolved. For conduct from years ago, seek early advice rather than assuming the door is closed—or that it is open.

Strategy still matters. Adding a damages claim to a separation can lengthen and sharpen a file, affect settlement dynamics, and carry costs exposure. For some clients it represents the right call and meaningful accountability. For others, a well-structured settlement achieving faster safety and stability represents the better path. That assessment is individual and should be made with clear thinking about both legal merits and personal litigation costs.

A closing thought

Much work has involved explaining to decision-makers that abuse is often not a single moment but a control system. Ahluwalia represents the law catching up to what survivors and front-line workers have described for decades. It will not be simple to apply, and courts will need to draw careful lines between coercive control and ordinary interpersonal conflict. But the naming itself matters.

If experiencing coercive control, or if having left a relationship where it was present and wondering about available options, assistance is available. Book a Free Consultation with a South Surrey, B.C. Family Lawyer.

---

About the author: Sandy Sihota is a family lawyer at SiLaw Group and an accredited Family Law Mediator, Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator.

SiLaw Group Family Lawyers & Mediation

Suite 201 – 3108 Croydon Drive, Surrey, BC V3S 0E5 | (778) 381-9977

This article is general information about a recent court decision. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Every situation is different—please consult a lawyer about your circumstances.

If in immediate danger, call 911. VictimLink BC operates 24/7 at 1-800-563-0808.