Fortuity - Canadian Insurance News and Trends - June 2026

On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. In a 6-3 decision, the Court recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence based on coercive control within intimate partnerships. Previously, survivors seeking damages from their abuser were required to bring separate claims under existing torts such as battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The new tort allows survivors to seek damages under a single cause of action. This judgment raises important questions for the insurance market regarding liability exposure and coverage.

In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, over the course of a 16-year marriage, the husband continuously abused the wife physically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually, and financially, intending to control her and condition her to obey him.

In the divorce proceedings, the wife sought standard family law remedies and additionally sought damages for the years of abuse she had suffered. At trial, the court recognized a novel tort of "family violence" and awarded damages accordingly. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to recognize the new tort, holding that existing torts already provided the wife with an adequate remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling

The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court acknowledged that although existing torts may address certain harms caused by intimate partner violence, such as physical violence and provable psychological illness, they do not fully capture the harm caused by coercive control—what the Court called a “strategy of domination” impacting the victim on a daily basis. The Court held that coercive control can include isolation, humiliation, surveillance, financial control, sexual coercion, and intimidation, none of which are adequately addressed by existing torts.

The newly recognized tort fills a gap in the law by allowing survivors to seek damages for the full scope of harm caused by coercive conduct as a single wrong.

Three elements of proof: The new tort of intimate partner violence

To establish the new tort, a plaintiff must prove three elements on a balance of probabilities:

1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;


2. The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct. The plaintiff only needs to show that the defendant intended to engage in the conduct, not that the defendant intended to exert coercive control over the plaintiff; and


3. The conduct, objectively measured, constitutes coercive control. A reasonable person, fully aware of the relationship context, would perceive the defendant's cumulative actions as amounting to an assertion of control that deprives the plaintiff of dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship.

Notably, the Court held that the plaintiff need not prove consequential harm as a separate element because “dignitary harm” flows from the intentional wrongs. If the three elements are satisfied, harm is presumed to flow from the wrongful conduct itself.

The Court further noted that the quantum of damages depends on the extent of harm and factual circumstances but must represent a meaningful response to the seriousness of the wrong.

A key difference between the new tort and existing torts is that existing torts focus on discrete incidents. The new tort allows consideration of less tangible wrongs, including loss of dignity, equality, and autonomy, or escalating coercive control over time.

Insurance coverage considerations and implications

While every liability coverage claim depends on policy wording and specific circumstances, defending parties in abuse litigation generally face coverage challenges. These include whether the underlying claims trigger the insuring agreement at all (given the fortuity requirement of “accident”), as well as exclusions such as the “intentional act exclusion,” “expected or intended injury exclusion,” “abuse exclusion,” or “criminal act exclusion.” While the duty to defend is rarely triggered for the alleged abuser, tactically crafted pleadings will often trigger the duty to defend under a standard form occurrence-based liability policy.

How does the new tort, which establishes that cumulative coercive control is a distinct and compensable legal wrong, affect the risk management landscape for liability insurers?

Duty to defend risks for the new tort

The duty to defend is easily triggered in Canada and is based entirely on the pleadings. Nonetheless, a duty to defend the alleged abuser for the new tort under liability policies will be very unlikely. While the tort of intimate partner violence expands legal remedies for victims, because it requires proof of intentional conduct and objective coercive control, pleadings against the alleged abuser without a non-derivative negligence allegation will likely not trigger a duty to defend. The same coverage roadblocks that apply to traditional abuse claims will also apply to the new tort.  Further, it is difficult to conceive how the abuser and victim could be “intimate partners”, as considered by the SCC, unless they lived together, which means that both would be an ”insured” under the homeowner policy and the “insured versus insured” or household exclusions typically found in homeowners policies would be triggered.

It is conceivable that intimate partner abuse allegations may occur in a domestic context involving multiple family members. The allegations against non-abusive family members would likely be couched in negligence for failing to prevent the abuse, and the duty to defend those defendants could be triggered under a liability policy. However, if the non-abusive family member is an “insured” under the homeowner policy, then the “insured versus insured” or household exclusions would again be triggered. 

If a duty to defend is triggered by the pleadings, then insurers should reasonably expect that claims involving the new tort will increase defence costs due to the relevant legal framework requiring a fact-intensive inquiry likely spanning considerable periods of time.

Indemnity risks for insurers and abuse claims generally

A liability policy’s indemnity coverage is triggered when a proven claim results in damages that fall within policy coverage. A liability insurer’s indemnity coverage risk is unlikely to be affected by a proven Ahluwalia tort against the abuser—those damages will not be covered based on the coverage roadblocks discussed above.

Liability insurers may face increased indemnity exposure for non-abusive family insureds who are successfully sued for failing to prevent domestic abuse that satisfies the test for intimate partner violence. In such cases, indemnity coverage could be triggered in favour of that family member, subject to a number of other coverage issues.

If indemnity coverage is triggered under a liability policy, then insurers will face increased indemnity coverage risk in connection with the new tort. First, the quantum of non-pecuniary damages will be more difficult to predict. The SCC has created a new tort which, if proven, will result in damages commensurate with the extent of harm imposed, without the need to actually prove damages. There are no established damage ranges from which to gauge “commensurate with the extent of harm imposed.” The new tort may not be subject to (and arguably is unlikely to be subject to) the SCC’s “trilogy cap” for non-pecuniary damages. It will thus be open to the individual judge or jury to determine appropriate damages when the new tort is proven. Uncertainty results in potentially higher risk.

Another impact for liability insurers may be the quantum of punitive damages if the policy provides such coverage. The type of behaviour leading to a finding of intimate partner violence will increase the likelihood of punitive damages being awarded.

Concluding comments

Overall, Ahluwalia is unlikely to significantly impact the coverage landscape for liability insurers in Canada. Insurers can reasonably expect that defence costs exposure may increase as counsel defend novel torts with more insured defendants. It is difficult to imagine how the new tort may arise outside of a marriage or intimate personal relationship given the defined elements of an “intimate partnership”. If indemnity coverage is triggered as discussed above, insurers are venturing into somewhat unknown territory regarding the quantum of damages.

Underwriters should proactively consider whether and how they would like liability policies to respond to the tort of intimate partner violence. If there is no desire to underwrite this risk, policies should be amended to clearly exclude damages and risks associated with this tort, with language more specific than existing “intentional tort” or abuse exclusions.