The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 fundamentally redefines how Canadian tort law understands domestic abuse, and paves an important path forward for victims.

For the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada formally recognized a tort of “intimate partner violence.” It is now clear, depending on the facts of the case, coercive and controlling conduct within intimate relationships can constitute a standalone legal wrong deserving of compensation.  

The majority of the Court recognized that abuse is not limited to physical assaults or overt threats. Rather, intimate partner violence “is centered around coercive control.” The decision acknowledges that coercive control includes “methods of control that are less visible” and “tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation…and intimidation that can control and entrap.” It includes “a wide array of more subtle forms of manipulation.”  

Critically, the Court recognized that the injury is not merely physical or psychiatric. Rather, coercive control is “organized around domination” (para 274) and creates a “distinctive injury” involving “dignitary harm.”  It is this dignitary harm that the new tort seeks to protect (para 200).

The majority further recognized that coercive control “operates by undermining the victim’s ability to make meaningful choices about their life.” It is, at its core, a form of “subordination.” The injury lies in overpowering the will of another through “domination and control.”

Yet the judgment is also notable for what it did not do.  It did not go as far as some had hoped.

In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303, the trial judge had recognized a broader tort of “family violence,” which could encompass coercive abuse directed toward children.

However, the new tort recognized by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada is a narrower one, of “intimate partner violence.”    

The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada recognized only a narrower tort gives rise to an important question. What is the situation when coercive control is directed at a child?  “Child” in this article includes both children and youth.

Children Can Be the Primary Targets of Coercive Control

A child may also be the victim of a protracted pattern of abusive behaviour that serves not just to hurt psychologically or physically, but to “bring her to heel.”

In some families, the coercive control dynamic is not directed toward the mother but toward a child. In others, it is directed toward both the mother and one or more children.

Coercive control may include discrete episodes, such as grabbing, striking, cornering, destroying property, or physically intimidating the child. It may also involve “frequent, recurrent low-level emotional abuse that may not rise to the level of flagrant or outrageous conduct,” with harm that is “emotional and psychological in nature.”

This behavior may include physical assaults, psychological humiliation and intimidation, conduct intending to inflict emotional distress, efforts to isolate the victim from family members, incompatible with the victim’s right to dignity in the relationship.

At para 275, the majority stated that

Coercive control is a useful model for identifying cumulative and discrete acts of abuse that on their own may appear harmless but in the broader context of domination and control within the relationship are much more sinister.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to coercive control. They may lack the developmental capacity to recognize the abuse as abnormal, instead experiencing domination and intimidation as ordinary family life. Unlike adults, children lack legal autonomy and independent access to housing, finances, transportation, or support systems, and are often entirely dependent on their caregivers. Coercive control can also hide within legitimate parental authority, making it difficult both for outsiders and the child to identify the behaviour as abusive. Compounding the harm, children frequently internalize the abuse through shame and self-blame, believing they are responsible for the parent’s anger, violence, or emotional withdrawal.

In some cases, the coercive individual may be a single parent. In other cases, the other parent may be powerless herself to exit the relationship. 

The Logic of Ahluwalia Applies to Children

Although the Supreme Court of Canada confined the new tort to intimate relationships, much of the reasoning in the decision also applies to children.  

The Supreme Court of Canada majority grounded the new tort in part on equality and in part on dignity. Given that children are already in a subordinate position to their caregivers, dignity may be the more fundamental concept for them. Surely everyone would agree that all human beings, at any age, have an inherent “right to be treated with dignity” (para 137).

While family violence against children can certainly include a gendered component, all children are naturally in a position of dependence and subordination to their caregivers. This means that both boys and girls may become victims of coercive domination by a caregiver.

Even where there is little or no physical violence, a child subjected to chronic psychological domination by a caregiver may experience profound and lasting harm. As the majority recognized in Ahluwalia at para 134, the cumulative pattern of conduct can produce “an overall loss of dignity that persist[s] well after each episode of abuse and which can permeate the victim’s life.”

Family law has evolved more quickly than tort law in the area of family violence.

The Divorce Act and British Columbia’s Family Law Act expressly recognize “family violence,” including coercive and controlling behaviour directed toward children. Courts making parenting decisions increasingly understand that, whether or not the other parent is also a victim, children can be direct victims of psychological domination.

But family law remedies are primarily protective and forward-looking. They address parenting arrangements and safety. They are not designed to compensate for harm already suffered in childhood.

Coercive Control Directed at Children

Coercive control by a parent toward a child, for example, may involve a combination of psychological domination and violence or threatened violence.

Over time, the child may become hypervigilant, anxious, emotionally suppressed at times, full of rage at other times, and unable to exercise normal autonomy without fear of consequences. The parent’s “domination and grip” may become “a defining characteristic of their relationship.” His or her free will may gradually become “overwhelmed by coercion.”

The cumulative effect of this treatment can profoundly impact the child’s emotional security, identity formation, confidence, ability to tolerate stress, and long-term ability to develop healthy relationships and independent judgment.

A Potential Future Development

At para 173, the majority expressly left “consideration of the impact of family violence on other family members to another day.” It did so in the common law tradition of developing the law incrementally, only so far as is required for the particular facts before the court.

Though it was not necessary to recognize a broader tort in this particular case, the majority expressly stated that it took “most seriously the idea” that “parents who are violent with their children may… be held to account in tort law.”

The significance of this passage cannot be overstated. It not only specifically preserves the ability of Canadian tort law to recognize coercive control directed toward children as an independent civil wrong, it also communicated to courts across Canada that this is a problem that a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada “takes most seriously.”

If coercive control is a compensable legal injury when directed at an intimate partner, there is no principled reason children should be treated differently. Children subjected to similar forms of psychological domination are even more vulnerable to its harms.  

It is likely that Canadian tort law will evolve beyond existing torts, toward a framework that more fully recognizes and compensates children subjected to coercive control, including the cumulative harms to their dignity, autonomy, psychological security associated with patterns of coercion, domination, and psychological control.

If you have experienced coercive control within an intimate partner relationship or as a child, or simply want to understand your rights, we are here to help. Learn more about Inspire Law or book a consultation to discuss your specific situation.

This article is for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and is not directed at any particular client or case. The views expressed herein are based on current law, specific facts and available information and may not be applicable to your specific situation or to any matter on which we may act. You should not rely on this material in place of consulting a qualified lawyer about your own situation.

About the Author
Susan Kootnekoff is a lawyer and founder of Inspire Law, an employment and human rights law practice that serves clients across British Columbia and beyond. She represents clients in employment related matters including wrongful dismissal claims, employment contract negotiations, severance negotiations, human rights complaints and workplace rights.

© 2026 Susan Kootnekoff, Barrister & Solicitor