In a long-anticipated landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of recognizing a new legal means for a victim of intimate partner violence to seek financial damages.
Canada’s highest court released its decision Friday, in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.
In a split decision of 6-3, the court ruled in favour of creating a new “tort of intimate partner violence.”
“The existing torts fail to remedy the specific wrong to dignity, autonomy and equality that intimate partner violence creates,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer in his decision.
A tort is a legal term for a civil claim that allows a person to ask for damages because someone else caused them harm.
“The new tort is tied to the intimate partnership and is distinct from existing torts in that it seeks to compensate the qualitatively different wrong of coercive control, and the qualitatively different harm of loss of autonomy,” wrote Justice Kasirer.
The decision creates a new legal avenue for victims of intimate partner violence specifically, rather leaving them to rely on broader grounds like assault or battery.
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia
At the centre of this decision is a 2016 case between Kuldeep Ahluwalia and Amrit Ahluwalia, who found themselves in an Ontario court after separating.
According to court documents, Mr. Ahluwalia abused his then-wife both physically and mentally.
At the time, the trial court judge recognized a new tort of family violence and awarded Ms. Ahluwalia $150,000 in damages.
In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the trial court’s decision, siding with Mr. Ahluwalia, in that his abusive conduct “gave rise to liability under existing torts” and that a new tort should not be recognized.
Supreme court changes proposed new tort
While ruling Friday, the Supreme Court made important changes to the initial legal basis created by the trial judge.
“The tort of family violence as cast by the trial judge is imprecise,” wrote Justice Kasirer.
“The tort of family violence would impose liability on family members broadly, not just intimate partners. The wrongful conduct that the parties put before the trial judge relates specifically to intimate partnerships, not all family relationships,” he added.
Justice Kasirer also outlines in his decision the elements that define this legal basis.
“A person must show that the wrongful conduct happened during an intimate relationship or after it ended, that the other person intentionally engaged in abusive conduct, and that the conduct amounted to coercive control when viewed in context,” he wrote.
Dissenting opinions
Three judges opposed the courts decision, arguing that the existing torts “provide full compensation in this case.”
“The principle that courts should recognize a new tort only when it is necessary to provide a remedy on the facts before them is sufficient to dismiss this appeal. The trial judge concluded that Ms. Ahluwalia was owed full compensation under the existing torts. In my respectful view, there is no basis to interfere with that conclusion,” wrote Justice Mahmud Jamal on behalf of the dissenting judges.
