Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

Intimate partner violence (IPV) takes many forms, all of which cause harm to survivors (who are disproportionately women and children). In August, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declared that gender-based violence is an epidemic. However, only certain forms of IPV were subject to legal sanction historically – primarily physical and sexual abuse, although sexual assault against a spouse was only criminalized in 1983 (see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 278). More recently, beginning in the 1970s and 80s, emotional and financial abuse and coercive control have been recognized as insidious forms of IPV. Coercive control focuses on patterns rather than discrete incidents of abuse, and on the impact on the survivor’s autonomy rather than physical injuries (see Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)). Although coercive control is not currently criminalized in Canada (unlike some other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales), broad definitions of IPV that include coercive control and emotional and financial abuse are now included in many Canadian laws. There are laws declaring IPV to be relevant to parenting decisions (including relocation), protection orders, early termination of leases, employment leave, and other legal remedies (for a comparison of these laws across Canada, see here). Gaps in the law’s recognition of IPV remain, however. For example, in Alberta, definitions of family violence in the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, and Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27, do not yet include emotional and financial abuse or coercive control. Moreover, as we discuss in this post, tort law has inconsistently provided avenues of economic redress for the harms caused by IPV.