Punjab woman’s fight against domestic abuse leads to landmark Canadian court ruling
New tort recognises coercive control and emotional abuse as civil wrong; verdict seen as major advance for survivors of domestic violence.
Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia. (Express Photo) In a landmark judgment that could significantly expand legal remedies for survivors of domestic abuse, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence, holding that patterns of coercive control and abuse within relationships can constitute a distinct civil wrong.
The ruling, delivered on May 15 in the case of Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia versus Amritpal Singh Ahluwalia, stems from a decade-long legal battle by a Punjab-born woman who said she endured years of abuse, isolation and coercive control after moving to Canada.
In a 6-3 decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (2026 SCC 16), the court held that intimate partner violence encompasses more than physical assaults and includes sustained patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour that undermine a person’s dignity, autonomy and equality within a relationship.
The judgment paves the way for victims to seek monetary damages for harms caused by such conduct.
Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia married Amritpal Singh Ahluwalia in India in 1999 before the couple immigrated to Canada in the early 2000s. They later had two children.
According to court findings, the abuse began shortly after their marriage in Punjab and escalated following their move to Canada. Isolation, the court noted, became a significant factor.
Speaking to New Canadian Media after the ruling, Brampton-based Kuldeep recalled how immigration intensified her vulnerability.
“In India, at least I had some family nearby. In Canada, I was completely alone. I didn’t know anyone. I didn’t know the system. That isolation made everything worse,” she said.
She described being subjected to prolonged silent treatment, financial control, humiliation, intimidation, restrictions on education and employment opportunities, and pressure for sex.
The couple separated after Amritpal filed for divorce in 2016.
Following an 11-day trial in 2022, during which Kuldeep represented herself, Ontario Superior Court Justice Renu Mandhane recognised what was then described as a novel tort of family violence and awarded her damages of Canadian $150,000, including compensatory, aggravated and punitive damages.
The Ontario Court of Appeal later upheld findings that she had suffered abuse but struck down the new tort and removed the punitive damages award, reducing compensation to Canadian $100,000.
Kuldeep then appealed to the Supreme Court, which recognised a narrower but distinct tort of intimate partner violence and restored the legal basis for compensation while maintaining the Canadian $100,000 award.
Writing for the majority, Justice Nicholas Kasirer observed that existing legal remedies such as assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress often fail to capture the cumulative nature of abuse.
“The tendency to frame intimate partner violence as episodic or incident-based sometimes fails to speak to the cumulative pattern of conduct that is greater than the sum of its parts,” the judgment said.
The court recognised that intimate partner violence can include isolation, financial control, surveillance, sexual coercion and emotional abuse, and noted that immigrant, racialised and Indigenous women often face heightened vulnerability because of language barriers, financial dependence, social isolation and cultural pressures.
The case has drawn particular attention within Canada’s South Asian community.
Kuldeep said many women are conditioned to tolerate abusive behaviour.
“Women in our culture are taught to obey. ‘Banda hai, gussa aa hi jaata hai’ (He is a man, he gets angry),” she told Aadya Arora of New Canadian Media , adding that fears of social stigma, family dishonour and concerns about children often discourage women from leaving abusive marriages.
Advocacy groups working with South Asian women welcomed the ruling.
Kaur Collective Foundation described the judgment as an important recognition of forms of abuse that frequently go unnoticed because they leave no physical injuries.
Share
