Disclaimer: This article aims to provide educational information on the Court of Appeal’s most recent decision regarding family violence. It is not intended to serve as legal advice. Consult with a lawyer and exercise your discretion before taking action based on the information provided in the blog.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently handed down a landmark decision. This case (Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia) impacts how torts, or civil wrongs, are used in family law cases involving family violence. As noted in the decision, nearly half of women and a third of men in Canada have experienced intimate partner violence, with rates on the rise.
This article will outline the facts of the case and the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia: creating the tort of family violence
The Ahluwalia’s were married in 1999 and separated in 2016. The wife brought an action for statutory relief, including divorce, child support, and spousal support. She also sought damages for her husband’s abusive conduct throughout their marriage.
During the original trial, the wife provided evidence of specific incidents of abuse, demonstrating a pattern of physical and emotional abuse. The judge acknowledged that the husband’s actions were aimed at conditioning and controlling his wife.
There are torts, or civil wrongs, that have been relied upon in previous family law matters. However, the trial judge found that the existing torts did not adequately address the complexities and day-to-day realities of long-term family violence. She established a new tort of family violence and awarded the wife $150,000 in damages.
The husband appealed this new tort. The wife proposed an alternative new tort of “coercive control” to address the subordination and control inflicted within an intimate relationship.
The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining:
- whether creating the new tort of family violence was necessary and appropriate;
- whether the court should recognize the tort of “coercive control.”
It recently handed down its decision, which we will outline below.
Court of Appeal decision: existing torts for family violence claims are sufficient
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the lower court’s decision. It pointed out that patterns of abuse had been previously brought forward using existing torts, such as battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the trial judge felt that the existing torts were insufficient, the Court of Appeal found that it did have sufficient flexibility to address family violence.
The Court of Appeal held that new torts should only be created when there is a genuine gap in the law and existing remedies are not enough to address the wrongs committed. Established torts of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress already addressed the harm suffered in abusive situations.
The Court of Appeal further noted that the trial judge’s approach in focusing solely on individual instances of torts, rather than recognizing the pattern of behavior involved in this case, was made without relying on established legal precedents. In contrast, previous courts have considered prolonged behavioral patterns in cases of intimate partner violence. Repetitive and cumulative behavior has been deemed relevant in determining liability.
The Court of Appeal’s rejection of the tort of “coercive control”
The wife proposed an alternative tort of “coercive control.” This tort would not require proof of actual harm but instead focused on the defendant’s intent to cause harm. However, the Court of Appeal declined to recognize this new tort.
It made this decision for a few reasons. Firstly, the existing tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress addresses this type of conduct. Secondly, since the wife had already proven actual harm. Therefore, creating a new tort based on a hypothetical scenario was deemed inappropriate. Finally, eliminating the requirement to prove harm could have significant implications for family law, undermining the focus on resolution.
Can a tort claim be included in family law proceedings?
This decision does not mean the court does not support family violence victims. The court clarified that when tort claims are brought alongside family law claims, statutory entitlements, such as child support and spousal support, should be addressed before assessing liability and damages for tort claims.
However, the decision notes that the trial judge did not err by including a tort claim in a family law proceeding. Survivors of intimate partner violence do not lose their remedies under tort law because they are in an intimate relationship.
Instead, the Court of Appeal determined that victims of intimate partner violence can rely on already-established torts. There was no need to create a new one.
Understanding your rights with Plat Simionati LLP
In conclusion, the recent landmark decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia has clarified the use of torts in family law cases involving family violence. The Ontario Court of Appeal:
- overturned the creation of a new tort of family violence, citing that existing torts like battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress already offer sufficient remedies for cases of abuse within intimate relationships
- rejected the proposal for a tort of “coercive control” as it could undermine the existing legal framework.
- emphasized that victims of intimate partner violence still have recourse under established tort law, providing them with the protection they deserve.
Family law matters can be complicated, and you must know your rights. With our experience and expertise, you can trust us to guide you through the complexities of family law, whether it’s divorce, child support, spousal support, or any other related issue.
At Plat Simionati LLP, we are committed to advocating for your best interests and helping you achieve a fair and just resolution. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward securing your future.