On May 15, 2026, in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence. A person can now sue a current or former partner for a sustained pattern of coercive control, not only for isolated acts of physical violence. To succeed, a plaintiff must prove three elements, and the harder part is usually evidentiary: documenting a private, cumulative pattern to a civil standard. That is where a lawful, methodical investigative record makes the difference.
The decision changes both what survivors can claim and what their counsel must prove. For law firms and the people they represent, the practical question is no longer only whether a remedy exists. It is how you prove a pattern of coercion that, by its nature, unfolded in private and over years. BCSI Investigations Inc. works at exactly that intersection, building documented, litigation-ready evidence for the new tort of intimate partner violence.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia?
In a six-to-three decision, the Court recognized a new common law tort of intimate partner violence, allowing a person to seek damages for coercive and controlling conduct within an intimate relationship or after it has ended. The recognized conduct reaches well beyond physical violence to include isolation, humiliation, financial control, sexual coercion, and intimidation.
The case began with Kuldeep Ahluwalia, who sought damages for the physical, emotional, and financial abuse she experienced over a 16-year marriage. In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice created a broad new tort of “family violence” and assessed damages of $150,000. The Ontario Court of Appeal then rejected that new tort and reduced the award to $100,000, finding existing torts adequate. Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Nicholas Kasirer recognized a narrower, free-standing tort focused specifically on intimate partnerships. As the Court’s plain-language summary puts it, this conduct “is not limited to separate acts of physical violence.”
What is the legal test for the new tort?
A plaintiff must prove three elements: the conduct occurred during an intimate partnership or after it ended, the defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct, and the conduct, viewed objectively and cumulatively, amounted to coercive control.
There is an important consequence for litigants. Once coercive control is established, the plaintiff does not have to separately prove consequential harm. Liability follows from the wrongful conduct itself. The majority also declined to set a limitation period for the new tort, a point that will be tested in lower courts. The result is a cause of action that turns on demonstrating a pattern, not on cataloguing one decisive incident.
Why is coercive control so hard to prove?
Coercive control is cumulative, private, and pattern-based, so the evidence rarely sits in a single place or a single event. Most of it never surfaces in the criminal system at all. According to the Government of Canada, in 2019 about 80 per cent of people who experienced intimate partner violence did not report it to police.
The scale is significant. Statistics Canada recorded 128,175 victims of police-reported intimate partner violence in 2024, 78 per cent of whom were women and girls, with the rate of intimate partner violence 3.5 times higher among women and girls than among men and boys. A civil claim asks a court to see the whole arc of a relationship, which means gathering scattered records and accounts and assembling them into a coherent, documented timeline.
What evidence supports an intimate partner violence claim?
A strong claim rests on a documented pattern, gathered lawfully and organized into a timeline a court can follow. In practice, that record is built from sources such as:
- Financial records that show economic control, including restricted access, transfers, and accounts held or hidden by one partner.
- Preserved communications the client already holds, such as messages, emails, and voicemails, captured and stored so their integrity is not in question.
- Digital evidence handled to preserve metadata and chain of custody, gathered within the law.
- Locates and asset tracing, where a partner has moved, gone silent, or concealed property relevant to the claim.
- Witness identification, finding and interviewing people who observed the relationship.
- A reconstructed timeline that connects discrete incidents into the sustained pattern the tort describes.
A word on boundaries matters here. This work is lawful and ethical, carried out in support of the survivor and their lawyer. It is not covert monitoring of a partner. Surveillance and monitoring are themselves named as forms of abuse in the decision, and a credible firm operates within the BC Security Services Act and never enables conduct that could endanger anyone. The role is to document, lawfully and precisely, what already happened, to a standard suitable for legal proceedings.
What does this decision mean for family and civil litigators?
It opens a new, free-standing cause of action with its own damages, and it raises the value of building an evidentiary record early. Because the tort turns on a cumulative pattern rather than a single event, it rewards organized, admissible documentation assembled before memories fade and records disappear.
Counsel who pair legal strategy with a disciplined evidentiary process are better positioned to meet the three-part test and to quantify damages credibly. Engaging a licensed investigator early, rather than after disclosure has stalled, gives a claim a documented backbone: the structure of a law firm, the precision of a specialized investigative unit.
A note for survivors considering a civil claim
You do not have to assemble proof alone, and you do not have to relive every incident to be believed. A confidential, lawful process can gather and organize the facts so that you and your lawyer can decide the next step with clarity. Where children are involved, their safety and wellbeing come first.
If you are in immediate danger, contact emergency services. Support is available, and a civil claim can proceed at your pace, on your terms, and in confidence.
Frequently asked questions
What is the tort of intimate partner violence in Canada?
It is a civil cause of action recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (2026 SCC 16) that lets a person sue a current or former intimate partner for a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, including abuse that is not physical.
Who can be sued under the new tort?
A current or former intimate partner whose intentional conduct, viewed cumulatively, amounted to coercive control during the relationship or after it ended.
Do you have to prove physical violence?
No. The tort covers conduct beyond physical violence, including isolation, humiliation, financial control, sexual coercion, and intimidation, where it amounts to coercive control.
What evidence is needed to prove coercive control?
A documented pattern over time: financial records, preserved communications, lawfully gathered digital evidence, located people or assets, witness accounts, and a timeline that connects them. Once coercive control is shown, separate proof of harm is not required.
Is a civil claim different from a criminal charge?
Yes. This is a civil claim for damages, decided on the balance of probabilities, and it can proceed whether or not criminal charges were ever laid. Most intimate partner violence is never reported to police.
Can a private investigator help with an intimate partner violence claim?
Yes, lawfully and in support of counsel. A licensed firm can preserve and organize evidence, locate people or assets, and build a litigation-ready timeline, all within the BC Security Services Act.
The bottom line
The decision moves the centre of gravity from the incident to the pattern, and from the criminal file to the civil claim. Proving a pattern is an evidentiary discipline, not a matter of luck or a single dramatic moment. BCSI Investigations Inc. builds documented, lawful, litigation-ready records for law firms and the people they represent across British Columbia, Canada, and internationally. To discuss a matter in confidence, request a confidential enquiry. The science of integrated investigations.
About the author: Denis Gagnon is President of BCSI Investigations Inc. and a former RCMP officer with more than 33 years of investigative experience. BCSI is a licensed private investigation firm headquartered in West Vancouver, retained by law firms, corporations, insurers, and private clients for complex, high-stakes matters.
