In the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized — for the first time — that intimate partner violence is a distinct civil wrong that entitles survivors to sue for damages. Writing for the majority in a 6-3 decision, Justice Nicholas Kasirer held that existing torts like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail to "remedy the specific wrong to dignity, autonomy and equality that intimate partner violence creates."

The new tort centres on the concept of coercive control — the pattern of behaviour through which an abuser dominates their partner's life. Unlike older legal claims that focus on individual incidents of violence, this tort recognizes that intimate partner violence operates as an ongoing system of control that breaks down a person's will, autonomy, and sense of self over time.

The Court defined coercive control as encompassing, on an objective measure, "the breakdown of the plaintiff's will, manifested through a diminished power to decide important matters in their own life or to meaningfully take part in decisions that affect the intimate partnership."

The Supreme Court recognized that intimate partner violence goes far beyond physical assaults. The new tort covers a broad range of abusive conduct, including:

Physical violence — hitting, slapping, pushing, strangling, or any physical assault within the relationship.

Isolation — cutting you off from family, friends, community, or cultural connections.

Manipulation — gaslighting, lying, and distorting reality to undermine your confidence and judgment.

Humiliation — belittling your appearance, intelligence, parenting, or worth, whether privately or in front of others.

Surveillance — monitoring your movements, communications, social media, or daily activities.

Economic abuse — controlling access to money, bank accounts, or credit; preventing you from working; or using finances as a tool of punishment or reward.

Sexual coercion — pressuring, manipulating, or forcing sexual activity within the relationship.

Intimidation — threats, property destruction, harming pets, or creating an atmosphere of fear.

If your partner or former partner engaged in any combination of these behaviours as a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, you may have a claim under this new tort.

To succeed in a claim under the new tort of intimate partner violence, a plaintiff must establish three elements:

First, that the abusive conduct occurred during an intimate relationship or after it ended. The Court clarified that "intimate partnership" means a relationship of close personal connection, sustained over time, and marked by domestic, emotional, financial, or physical intimacy. It is not limited to marriage or cohabitation.

Second, that the other person intentionally engaged in abusive conduct — meaning they deliberately carried out the behaviour, whether violent, threatening, coercive, or controlling.

Third, that the conduct, viewed in its full context, amounted to coercive control. The focus is on the cumulative pattern of behaviour and its effect on the survivor's autonomy, not on any single incident in isolation.

Survivors who bring a successful IPV civil claim in British Columbia may be entitled to several categories of damages, including:

Compensatory damages — for mental health impacts, therapy and counselling costs, lost earning capacity, and other financial losses flowing from the abuse.

Aggravated damages — additional compensation recognizing the breach of trust, vulnerability, and the particular harm caused by coercive control within an intimate relationship.

Punitive damages — in appropriate cases, to condemn especially egregious conduct and to deter abusers.

In the Ahluwalia case itself, the trial judge awarded $150,000 in damages for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, financial, and sexual abuse. The Supreme Court's decision confirms that these claims can result in substantial awards that go well beyond what family law remedies like spousal support alone can provide.