The Supreme Court's decision could make it easier for people who suffer wide-ranging abuse in an intimate partner relationship to win cash compensation in the civil courts.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
In an unusual move on Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada created a new legal basis for people to seek damages for alleged intimate partner violence in relationships marred by coercive control.
The majority decision could make it easier for people who suffer wide-ranging abuse in an intimate partner relationship to win cash compensation in the civil courts. But in a sharp dissent, a minority of the top court judges warned the ruling upends the established legal landscape and will stoke confusion in the lower courts.
“Intimate partner violence is a pernicious social ill deserving of the full attention of the law,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer on behalf of the majority, including Chief Justice Richard Wagner, in favour of forging new legal territory.
Justice Kasirer said such violence isn’t confined to physical or psychological injury but includes a range of tactics that encompass the concept of coercive control. This includes “isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation.”
The ruling is a victory for advocates who have long argued that coercive control needs to be better recognized by the justice system.
The case focused on a couple in Brampton and the breakdown of their marriage. Kuldeep Ahluwalia, a Punjabi woman, and Amrit Ahluwalia ended up in court in 2016 after they separated. They had met and married in 1999 in India and came to Canada in the early 2000s.
How Bailey’s Law and Bill C-16 target intimate partner violence and avoid overlap
Mr. Ahluwalia began abusing Ms. Ahluwalia near the start of their marriage, according to records filed at the Supreme Court. There were three major physical assaults over the years. Mr. Ahluwalia at times isolated Ms. Ahluwalia from her family in India, restricted her from making friends and controlled the family finances.
In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded her $150,000 and – most notably on the legal front – created a new tort of “family violence” to encompass the abuse Ms. Ahluwalia endured.
A tort is a legal term for the basis to sue for damages in civil, rather than criminal, court. Long-established torts include harms such as assault and battery.
It is rare, however, for any court to create a new tort.
In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision, saying a new tort was unnecessary and reducing the damages to $100,000.
On Friday, the Supreme Court took a new direction. The question on the table wasn’t the damages but whether a new tort was necessary.
The Supreme Court said yes, but rejected the lower court’s tort of family violence.
The top court instead created a new tort of intimate partner violence, focused specifically on what happened to Ms. Ahluwalia during her marriage. Justice Kasirer noted that the law evolves incrementally but said there are times, such as this case, when the courts must “fill the gap in the law.”
Quebec tables bill allowing people to obtain domestic violence history of partners
He said existing torts were inadequate to cover what happened to Ms. Ahluwalia during the marriage.
“The husband’s domination and grip over the wife remained a defining characteristic of their relationship,” wrote Justice Kasirer.
The top court long grappled with the Ahluwalia case. The hearing took place in February, 2025, and the 15-month span to deliberate and produce the judgment ranks among the longest in the court’s history.
The ruling includes the main majority judgment from five judges, a concurrence from Justice Andromache Karakatsanis that in general agrees with the majority, and a dissent written by Justice Mahmud Jamal that included Justices Suzanne Côté and Malcolm Rowe. The entire package runs almost 75,000 words, the length of a novel.
Justice Jamal’s dissent was particularly sharp compared with the mostly polite tone of dissents at Canada’s Supreme Court. He called intimate partner violence an epidemic and said the justice system must respond with both compassion and legal principles. The judge concluded existing torts were “fully capable” to provide compensation to Ms. Ahluwalia.
He emphasized the “need for judicial restraint” and wrote: “Recognizing a new tort can entail a radical shift in the law that is better left to a legislature.”
He warned that a new tort of intimate partner violence could spark confusion in the lower court. He called the work of the majority “complex and unprecedented” and said it will create “significant complications for plaintiffs seeking compensation for intimate partner violence.”