Six judges back new tort in Ahluwalia V Ahluwalia

In ahluwalia v ahluwalia, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that victims of intimate partner violence can sue an abusive former spouse for damages. Six of the court’s nine judges agreed the law should recognize a new civil damages remedy for coercive control abuse.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote for the five-judge majority and said existing torts such as assault and battery do not fully capture intimate partner violence defined by coercive control. The majority called the remedy a tort of intimate partner violence and set out a three-part test for courts to use when deciding whether to recognize a new tort in future cases.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer

Kasirer wrote that coercive control can include subtle acts that may seem minor on their own but work together to let one partner exercise abusive power over another. He cited financial control, stalking and surveillance, preventing access to educational, employment or recreational opportunities, and threatening to commit suicide as examples of that conduct.

He also wrote: “The intimate partner is not simply seeking compensation for the physical and psychological bruises that are recognized by existing torts; in effect, they are alleging ‘I am not just a bruised spouse, I am an unfree spouse’.”

Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia

The underlying case involved Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia and her ex-husband, Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia. They married in 1999 and separated in 2016 after Ms. Ahluwalia suffered multiple instances of violent physical, emotional and financial abuse. After the separation, she sued Mr. Ahluwalia for damages linked to the spousal violence.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Renu J. Mandhane found the marriage was characterized by a pattern of emotional and physical abuse and financial control. She created a new tort of family violence and awarded Ms. Ahluwalia $150,000 in damages.

Ontario Superior Court

The federal government said it supported the creation of the new tort for family violence, though it has never legislated one. Friday’s ruling gives victims a civil route to seek damages under a tort the Supreme Court majority described as a response to coercive control within an intimate partner relationship.

For people in situations like Ms. Ahluwalia’s, the practical change is that coercive control is no longer left to fit awkwardly inside older torts alone. Courts now have a new three-part test to work through when asked to recognize this type of claim in future cases.