Hungry for more?! Subscribe to Notes from The Pathway Legal Pack for tasty morsels of wisdom!

pathway legal team family lawyers bc
Request Consultation >
Call 778-557-5099

The Supreme Court Just Changed the Rules on Family Violence
For decades, coercive control had no name in civil law. In May 2026, Canada's highest court gave it one — and gave survivors a new path to compensation. Here's what that means if you live in British Columbia.

: Journey presiding over a boardroom of sunglasses-wearing dogs under a nameplate reading "The Cool Counsel.

Abuse in a relationship is rarely just a single incident. It's a pattern. It's the slow erosion of your world. It's being watched, controlled, humiliated, isolated, and financially cut off — often without a bruise to show for it. For a long time, the law was not designed to see that picture. It looked for individual acts. It missed the shape of the whole.

That changed on May 15, 2026.

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada formally recognized a new civil claim called the tort of intimate partner violence. The case is Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. It applies across Canada — including here in British Columbia. And it matters deeply.

This article breaks down what happened, what it means, and what you can actually do with this information.

The case behind the ruling

Kuldeep and Amrit Ahluwalia married in India in 1999, immigrated to Canada in 2001, and had two children. They separated in 2016 after sixteen years of marriage. What Kuldeep experienced during those years was not confined to isolated incidents of physical violence. It was a sustained pattern of physical, emotional, psychological, and financial abuse — coercive control that shaped and limited her entire life.

When Kuldeep went to court, she did something that few survivors had tried before: she asked for civil damages for the abuse itself. Not just property. Not just support. Compensation for the harm done to her dignity, her autonomy, and her sense of self.

At trial, the judge agreed and created a new "tort of family violence," awarding her $150,000. The Ontario Court of Appeal pushed back, said existing laws were enough, and reduced the award to $100,000. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court sided with Kuldeep — and in doing so, changed Canadian civil law.

What is a tort? A tort is a civil legal claim for compensation. When someone wrongs you in a way the law recognizes, you may be entitled to damages — a money payment — from the person who caused the harm. The new tort of intimate partner violence is a standalone civil claim that survivors can bring alongside their family law proceedings.

🐾  ASK JOURNEY

Does this sound like your relationship — or one you have left?

You don't have to have been physically hurt to have experienced intimate partner violence. Ask yourself:

• Were you controlled financially — denied access to money, required to account for every dollar?

• Were you isolated from friends, family, or community?

• Were you humiliated, monitored, threatened, or made to feel like you had no choices?

• Did you feel afraid to leave — or afraid to stay?

If you nodded along to any of those, there may be more legal options available to you than you know. Keep reading — and then talk to us.

What the Supreme Court actually decided

Journey wearing dark tortoiseshell wayfarer sunglasses, relaxed and confident against a warm cream background.

Justice Kasirer, writing for the majority, held that existing torts — battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress — were not designed to capture the full harm of coercive and controlling conduct in an intimate relationship. They were built to respond to isolated incidents. Coercive control is not an incident. It is a sustained campaign of domination that erodes the survivor's dignity, autonomy, and equality over time.

The Court held that this kind of harm "cries out" for a distinct legal remedy — and recognized one.

The three elements of the new tort

To establish a claim for intimate partner violence, a survivor must prove three things:

1. The conduct happened in an intimate relationship — or after it ended

The relationship must have been a close personal partnership sustained over time, marked by interdependence, care, commitment, or emotional, financial, or physical intimacy. The period after separation is included — because abuse does not always stop when a relationship does.

2. The conduct was intentional

The person causing harm must have intentionally engaged in the abusive conduct. They don't have to have intended every specific consequence — but the behaviour itself must have been deliberate, not accidental.

3. The conduct amounted to coercive control in context

A court looks at the pattern as a whole — not just individual incidents in isolation. The question is whether, taken together, the behaviour deprived the survivor of their dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship.

One critical point for survivors: you do not need a separate medical or psychological diagnosis to establish the claim. The Court held that the harm flows from the wrongful conduct itself. You still need evidence — but a psychiatric report is not the ticket into the courtroom.

 🐾  ASK JOURNEY

What if the abuse was mostly emotional or financial — not physical?

This is one of the most important questions to ask. The new tort was specifically designed to capture what the Court called the "less spectacular forms of violence" — the patterns that grind a person down over time. Emotional abuse, financial restriction, surveillance, humiliation, intimidation, and isolation all count. Physical violence is not required.

The myths that have silenced survivors — and what the court said about them

West Coast LEAF and Rise Women's Legal Centre intervened in this case specifically to address the harmful myths and stereotypes that have shaped how courts respond to intimate partner violence. These myths do real damage. They make survivors doubt themselves before they ever walk through a courthouse door.

The Supreme Court took these concerns seriously. Here are six myths the Court's ruling helps to dismantle — and the truth behind each one.

The myth

The reality

"Real victims leave." If you stayed or went back, you cannot have been truly abused.

Leaving is complicated by fear, finances, immigration status, children, and coercive control itself. Staying does not mean consenting. Courts are cautioned against using this reasoning.


"You waited too long to report." If the abuse was serious, you would have told someone sooner.

Disclosure is shaped by shame, fear of retaliation, distrust of institutions, and the nature of coercive control. Delayed reporting is not evidence of fabrication.


"It's just a high-conflict relationship." Both people are difficult — this is mutual dysfunction, not abuse.

Coercive control is not mutual conflict. There is a perpetrator and a survivor. Framing systematic abuse as a "high conflict" dynamic obscures that reality.


"It wasn't serious — there was no physical violence." Without bruises, there is no case.

The new tort was built precisely to address this gap. Non-physical abuse — financial control, isolation, surveillance, humiliation — is legally recognized harm.


"She's lying to get more money in the divorce." Abuse allegations are a litigation tactic.

The Court flagged this as a harmful stereotype and built guardrails into the tort. The claim that survivors weaponize abuse disclosures is itself a myth.


"IPV has nothing to do with parenting." What happens between partners is separate from the children.

Research and BC law recognize that family violence directly affects children. A pattern of coercive control is relevant to parenting arrangements and decision-making authority.


🐾  ASK JOURNEY

Have you been told your story won't be believed — or doesn't count?

You may have heard — from a family member, a friend, or even a previous lawyer — that what happened to you wasn't "bad enough" to matter legally. The Supreme Court of Canada just addressed that directly. Courts are now explicitly cautioned against applying these myths. Your experience counts. Your story deserves to be heard properly.

What this ruling means if you are in British Columbia

What this ruling means if you are in British Columbia

The decision in Ahluwalia is binding on every court in Canada, including the BC Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal. It is not Ontario-only. It applies here.

In BC, family violence is already a factor courts must consider under the Family Law Act. This ruling adds something new: a civil claim for damages that sits beside your family law proceedings. These are different streams, and they work differently.

Family law remedies vs. the new tort — what's the difference?  

Your family law case resolves parenting arrangements, child support, spousal support, and property division. The new tort of intimate partner violence is a separate civil claim for money damages — compensation specifically for the harm caused by coercive and controlling conduct. You can pursue both. They are not in competition with each other.

What "coercive control" looks like in practice

Coercive control is not one thing. The Supreme Court recognized that it can include any combination of the following:

  • Physical violence or threats of violence — including threats directed at children, pets, or property
  • Financial control — restricting access to money, preventing employment, accumulating debt in your name
  • Isolation — cutting you off from friends, family, cultural community, or support networks
  • Surveillance and monitoring — tracking movements, reading messages, controlling devices
  • Humiliation and degradation — public or private conduct designed to undermine confidence and independence
  • Sexual coercion — pressure, manipulation, or force in relation to sexual conduct
  • Litigation abuse — using the court process itself as a tool of ongoing control and harassment

That last one matters a great deal. The Supreme Court, citing West Coast LEAF and Rise, specifically recognized litigation abuse as a form of non-physical intimate partner violence. If your former partner has been using the legal process to drain your resources, delay proceedings, or keep you in a state of constant fear and uncertainty, that conduct is now legally significant.

🐾  ASK JOURNEY

Is the legal process itself being used against you?

Litigation abuse is real — and it is now recognized as a form of intimate partner violence under Canadian law. Ask yourself:

• Has your former partner filed repeated applications without merit?

• Have they used court proceedings to drain your finances or wear you down emotionally?

• Has every step in the process felt designed to keep you afraid, exhausted, and under their control?

If you are experiencing this, it changes what your legal options look like. We want to know about it.

What you can actually do with this information

A Supreme Court ruling does not automatically put money in your account or end your situation. It creates a legal framework — and what you do with that framework depends on your specific facts. Here is where to start.

Document everything you can

The tort requires evidence of a pattern. That means documentation matters. Text messages, emails, voicemails, financial records, medical records, photos, and journals all help build a picture. If you are still in the relationship, do this safely. Use a device your partner cannot access. If you are already separated, start gathering what you have.

Understand that safety comes first

Legal strategy matters — but your physical safety matters more. If you are in immediate danger, contact the police or a transition house. In BC, VictimLink BC is available 24 hours a day at 1-800-563-0808. These are not signs of weakness. They are the first step.

Recognize how family violence affects parenting decisions in BC

Under the BC Family Law Act, courts are required to consider family violence when making decisions about parenting time and decision-making authority. The law specifically identifies a list of factors, including whether a child was present during violence, the nature and severity of the conduct, and whether there is a pattern of behaviour. The conduct your former partner directed at you is not irrelevant to the question of your children's wellbeing. It matters.

🐾  ASK JOURNEY

Are you worried about what the abuse means for your parenting situation?

You are not alone in that fear. Many parents worry that raising the history of violence will make the process messier or be used against them. In most cases, the opposite is true. BC family law requires courts to take family violence into account when deciding what is in a child's best interests. Silence on this topic rarely protects children — or you. Let us help you understand what disclosing it actually means for your case.

What this ruling does not do

It is important to be clear about the limits of this decision, because overselling legal outcomes does real harm.

  • The ruling does not mean everyone who experienced difficult conduct in a relationship has an automatic claim. The tort requires proof of a pattern that rises to the level of coercive control.
  • It does not mean your former partner will face criminal consequences. The criminal and civil systems operate separately on different standards of proof.
  • It does not guarantee a large damages award. Compensation will depend on your specific circumstances and the evidence available.
  • It does not change the fact that this process can be long and emotionally demanding. Court proceedings involving family violence allegations require careful, strategic legal guidance.


A note on limitations periods: Civil claims in BC are generally subject to a two-year limitation period. There are important exceptions and nuances in the context of intimate partner violence — and the law in this area is still developing in the wake of the Ahluwalia decision. Do not assume a time limit has passed without speaking to a lawyer first.

🐾  ASK JOURNEY

How long ago did the abuse happen — and have you been afraid to ask about your options?

Timing matters in civil claims, and the rules are more nuanced than you might think. Many survivors wait years before seeking legal advice — out of fear, shame, or simply not knowing a claim was possible. The Ahluwalia decision is very recent. If you are wondering whether it might apply to your situation, even if the relationship ended years ago, please ask. You deserve a real answer based on your specific facts — not a guess.

How we approach family violence at Pathway Legal

At Pathway Legal, we believe every person who comes to us deserves to be believed, heard, and properly advised. We have guided families across British Columbia through some of the most difficult chapters imaginable, and we understand that the intersection of family violence and family law is one of the most complex and sensitive areas we encounter.

Our work is guided by the P.A.T.H. Method — Practical, Action-Oriented, Trustworthy, and Heart-Centred. When you come to us, we will not minimize what you have been through. We will help you understand what your legal options actually look like — and help you make the choices that fit your life.

We offer a money-back guarantee on our initial consultation fee. We want you to feel confident that speaking to us is worth your time, your energy, and whatever courage it took to make the call. If you walk away feeling that we were not the right fit, you will not be out of pocket.

We work with clients across BC from our offices in Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, and Surrey — and by video, province-wide.

🐾  ASK JOURNEY

Are you ready to talk about what happened — and what comes next?

That is a big question. For some people, the answer is yes. For others, reading this article was the step. Wherever you are, that is okay. Journey is here to remind you that there is a path through this — and that you do not have to figure it out alone. When you are ready, we are here.

Book your consultation: pathwaylegal.ca/request-consultation.html  |  778-557-5099

Key takeaways from the Ahluwalia decision

  • The Supreme Court of Canada recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence in May 2026 — it applies across Canada, including BC.
  • The tort covers coercive control, not just physical violence. Emotional, financial, and psychological abuse all count.
  • Survivors do not need a separate medical diagnosis to establish the claim — the harm flows from the wrongful conduct itself.
  • Courts are now explicitly cautioned against relying on harmful myths and stereotypes about survivors.
  • Litigation abuse — using the court process as a control tactic — is recognized as a form of non-physical intimate partner violence.
  • This new civil claim sits alongside family law remedies. It does not replace your parenting, support, or property rights.
  • BC family law already requires courts to consider family violence in parenting decisions. The Ahluwalia ruling strengthens that landscape.
  • Time limits apply to civil claims. Speak to a lawyer before assuming an option has expired.


Support resources in BC

Legal advice is one part of this. Safety and support are the foundation. Here are resources available to BC residents:

  • VictimLink BC — 1-800-563-0808 (24 hours, multilingual)
  • BC Society of Transition Houses — bcstransitionhouses.ca
  • Battered Women's Support Services — bwss.org — 604-687-1867 (Metro Vancouver)
  • Legal Aid BC — lss.bc.ca — for those who qualify financially, family law legal advice may be available
  • Rise Women's Legal Centre — risebc.ca — free legal advice for women and gender-diverse people in BC

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Family law is fact-specific and the law changes. Reading this does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Pathway Legal. For advice about your situation, consult a qualified BC family law lawyer.