Coercive Control: It Doesn’t Stop at Separation

We’ve talked a lot in our Blog about the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ahluwahlia v. Ahluwalia, which explored the important concept of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). One of the most important lessons to emerge from that ruling, is that IPV is not always physical. It can take the form of coercive control – a persistent pattern of behaviour designed to dominate, isolate, intimidate, or manipulate another person over time.

But there is another aspect of coercive control that deserves more attention: It does not necessarily end when the relationship ends.

When Litigation Becomes an Abusive Tool

Many people assume that separation brings an end to abusive conduct, but unfortunately this is not always the case. For some individuals, separation simply changes the methods through which control is exercised by their former partner. For others, the abusive conduct may even increase after the split.

That’s because some abusive partners use the post-separation negotiations, and the litigation process itself, as tools through which to try to maintain power and control over their former partner.

It can take the form of one former partner using legal, financial, parenting, or administrative processes to continue exerting pressure on the other.   Legal processes are no longer being used to resolve genuine disputes; instead they become part of a continuing pattern of intimidation or domination.

This phenomenon has even attracted increasing attention from researchers and the courts. It is often described as “post-separation abuse” or “systems abuse”.

What Does it Look Like, Exactly?

That post-separation abusive conduct can take many forms. For example:

• One parent may bring repeated court motions that have little realistic prospect of success, but require the other parent to spend significant time and money responding.
• The former spouse may delay or withhold financial disclosure without good reason, which needlessly prolongs the litigation and increases the financial pressure on the other spouse.
• A parent may deliberately obstruct necessary decisions affecting the children, not because there is genuine disagreement, but because the delay itself can give them leverage.

These are just a few examples.

Communication can become another important tool for exercising control. For example:

• Every routine parenting issue may require lengthy exchanges through lawyers, increasing both costs and emotional strain.
• Children may become caught in the middle through inappropriate involvement in adult disputes.
• There may be subtle efforts by one parent to undermine the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The cumulative effect of these actions can be profound. Even though the parties no longer live together, one of them may continue to experience the same anxiety, uncertainty, and loss of autonomy that characterized the relationship itself.

What Do Courts Have to Say?

Especially in the post-Ahluwalia era, this growing understanding about coercive control in the post-separation stage has influenced judicial decision-making.

Increasingly, courts are recognizing that abusive relationships cannot always be understood by examining isolated incidents. Instead, they may need to consider the overall pattern of conduct, including behaviour occurring after separation, in order to understand its impact on the other party and, where children are involved, on the family as a whole.

That does not mean every difficult or contentious case involves coercive control. Family litigation is often emotional, and people understandably disagree about important issues affecting their children and finances. The challenge for courts is to distinguish between ordinary conflict on the one hand, and a sustained pattern of behaviour intended to control, intimidate, or exhaust another person, on the other.

The Takeaway

As Canadian Family law continues to evolve following the Ahluwalia decision, this distinction between simple conflict-vs.-control is likely to receive increasing attention. Courts, lawyers, and mental health professionals are becoming more aware that the end of a relationship does not necessarily mean the end of coercive control.

If you are recently separated from an abusive partner, and are concerned about the persistence of IPV and coercive control even after your split, give our offices a call.  We can help you navigate the legal system in a way that also can protect you from continuing abuse.