Law360 Canada (May 20, 2026, 9:13 AM EDT) --

Russell Alexander

The Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence may have consequences extending well beyond tort law. Combined with British Columbia’s recent expansion of virtual family court appearances, the ruling significantly strengthens the argument that Canadian courts must continue modernizing remote hearing infrastructure to better protect vulnerable litigants.

The court recognized, for the first time, a standalone tort of intimate partner violence grounded in coercive control. The majority held that existing torts such as assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail to adequately capture the cumulative harms caused by abusive and controlling conduct within intimate relationships.

The decision arrives at a time when some Canadian jurisdictions are reconsidering or scaling back pandemic-era remote hearing models in favour of renewed in-person attendance requirements. British Columbia, however, has recently moved in the opposite direction by expanding videoconference participation in family proceedings and making virtual attendance the default for certain conferences.

Taken together, these developments raise an increasingly important question: if Canadian courts now recognize coercive control and litigation abuse as central features of many family disputes, should procedural systems continue forcing vulnerable litigants into unnecessary physical courtroom confrontations?

The Supreme Court’s answer may not be explicit, but the implications of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 point strongly in one direction.

Coercive control extends beyond physical violence

A central feature of the court’s reasoning in Ahluwalia is that intimate partner violence is not limited to isolated physical assaults. Rather, it often involves broader patterns of domination through intimidation, humiliation, surveillance, financial control, manipulation and isolation.

The court repeatedly emphasized that the legal harm extends beyond bodily injury and includes deprivation of dignity, autonomy and equality within intimate relationships.

Importantly, the majority also expressly recognized “litigation abuse” as a potential form of coercive control.

That recognition matters.

For many litigants, particularly victims of domestic violence, the litigation process itself may unintentionally reinforce existing power imbalances. Endless procedural attendances, strategic delay, unnecessary motions and repeated in-person confrontations can become extensions of the broader control dynamic the court now formally recognizes.

Remote hearings are no longer merely about convenience

For several years, debate surrounding virtual hearings has largely focused on efficiency, convenience and cost savings. Critics have argued remote proceedings may reduce advocacy quality, diminish courtroom decorum or complicate credibility assessments.

Some of those concerns remain legitimate, particularly for lengthy trials involving contested evidence and significant credibility findings. None of this diminishes the importance of procedural fairness or the continued need for in-person hearings where appropriate.

However, Ahluwalia materially changes the broader discussion.

The issue is no longer simply whether remote hearings are convenient. Courts must now also consider whether procedural systems themselves either alleviate or exacerbate vulnerability for victims of domestic violence.

That analysis necessarily includes:

• Physical proximity to former abusive partners
• Intimidation within courthouse settings
• Childcare and employment disruption
• Financial barriers associated with repeated attendances
• Emotional stress caused by ongoing physical confrontation
• Geographic and transportation challenges for vulnerable litigants.

Remote proceedings do not eliminate those problems entirely. They do, however, substantially reduce many of them.

Access to justice and court modernization

The Supreme Court repeatedly framed the new tort as an access-to-justice measure, particularly for vulnerable and self-represented litigants.

That emphasis aligns directly with the policy rationale underlying continued modernization of remote family proceedings.

Virtual case conferences, scheduling appearances and procedural motions frequently permit:

• Faster access to the court
• Reduced litigation costs
• Improved scheduling flexibility
• Reduced disruption for children and families
• Greater participation for litigants in remote communities
• Fewer opportunities for intimidation surrounding courthouse attendance.

These concerns are particularly acute in family law, where litigants often lack financial resources, proceed without counsel and remain emotionally vulnerable throughout prolonged proceedings.

The practical reality is that family courts across Canada continue to struggle with overloaded dockets, increasing self-representation and significant delay. The ability to efficiently conduct procedural appearances remotely is no longer simply an administrative preference. Increasingly, it has become a substantive access-to-justice issue.

British Columbia may be moving ahead of the curve

British Columbia’s recent move toward expanded videoconference attendance may ultimately prove less an experiment and more an early recognition of where Canadian family justice is inevitably heading.

The Supreme Court has now expanded Canadian law’s understanding of domestic violence beyond visible physical abuse toward a broader recognition of coercive control and post-separation litigation dynamics.

Procedural systems must evolve accordingly.

That does not mean all hearings should become permanently virtual. Trials involving complex factual disputes, credibility findings and extensive evidence may continue to justify in-person attendance. But routine procedural appearances and case management matters increasingly appear well suited for remote adjudication.

The legal system cannot meaningfully recognize coercive control as an actionable civil wrong while simultaneously ignoring how procedural structures themselves may intensify vulnerability for those experiencing it.

The bottom line

Ahluwalia will likely become one of the defining Canadian family law decisions of the decade.

Its impact, however, may extend well beyond tort law.

The decision forces courts, policymakers and the profession to confront a broader reality: modern access to justice in family law increasingly requires modern procedure. Remote hearing technology is no longer merely about efficiency. In many cases involving intimate partner violence, it may now be essential to meaningful participation in the justice system itself.

Russell Alexander is the founder of Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers, whose focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family-related issues including custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes and enforcement of court orders. For more information, visit www.RussellAlexander.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.