Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) – Financial Damages Awards Are On the Horizon
In the past few Blogs, we’ve been covering the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. In that ruling the Court recognized a new civil tort of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), and confirmed that in some cases the victims of such violence could seek monetary damages from the perpetrators.
Since the decision was handed down, those of us who practice Family law have been watching to see how quickly it would begin to affect day-to-day litigation.
So far, there do not appear to be any reported Ontario decisions in which a court has actually awarded monetary damages in line with the Ahluwalia. This is not surprising, since tort claims take time to plead, prove, and work their way through the courts.
But rest assured, they are on the horizon. Because we can see that courts are already starting to weave the prospect of civil actions for IPV into their thinking and reasoning.
Two very recent Ontario cases illustrate that point.
The first is HSCAS v. HSCAS v. M.S., 2026 ONSC 3038, which was a child protection case. The court made serious findings against the mother, concluding she had perpetrated acts of family violence and online harassment, among other things. It warned her in very clear terms that she might face a variety of legal consequences in the future, including a civil claim for IPV-related damages.
A second example appears in Smith v. Seyoum, 2026 ONSC 3397. Again, the proceeding was not a civil action for damages, but rather a Family law trial for parenting time and child support. The father, referred to as Mr. Seyoum, was highly abusive to the mother Ms. Smith and their child, “L”. The court began its judgment this way:
As I will explain below, I find that Mr. Seyoum committed acts of family violence toward Ms. Smith and L. I find that Mr. Seyoum hit Ms. Smith one night when L. woke up crying, spanked L. in anger, and terrorized L. by placing him in a pitch black bathroom as punishment. I also find that Mr. Seyoum exposed L. to violence when, during an overnight supervised parenting session, Mr. Seyoum kicked his own mother hard enough to break her pelvis in two places.
What followed was a 274-paragraph ruling where the judge crafted various Family law remedies as appropriate to the unique circumstances. In doing so, the judge relied on the Ahluwalia principles to emphasize that coercive control can take many forms, including:
- Isolation
- Intimidation
- Psychological abuse
- Financial control
- Surveillance
- Litigation abuse, and
- Preventing an intimate partner from maintaining relationships with family and friends.
Among the many other remedies, the judge agreed to issue a final restraining order against the abusive father, to protect the mother and their child.
Again, neither of these decisions resulted in an award of damages under the new tort of IPV. Yet both reveal that the Family courts’ thinking around domestic violence has already been reshaped by the Ahluwalia principles, and that courts stand ready to award monetary compensation in the right circumstances.
If you’re experiencing Intimate Partner Violence and are ready to explore your options, our Firm can help. Give us a call.