Law360 Canada (May 22, 2026, 3:02 PM EDT) --

Steve Benmor

Below I answer these eight questions:

1. What is the new law?
2. What must a victim prove?
3. How can a victim prove her injuries?
4. How will judges calculate compensation?
5. What does this tort not cover?
6. Does intimate partner violence (IPV) look forwards or backwards?
7. How does IPV compensation mesh with support/property monies?
8. Will the new law resolve IPV?

1. What is the new law?

In a landmark decision last week, five of nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada joined together to formally recognize a new law — the tort of intimate partner violence. This new law allows victims of spousal abuse to sue either in family court or civil court for financial compensation from their abusers. For the first time in Canadian legal history, a spouse who has endured abuse by their partner has a standalone legal remedy.

On June 4, 1986, Canada became a no-fault divorce country to allow married spouses to end a marriage without proving fault. Previously, they had to prove in court that their spouse committed cruelty or adultery to get a divorce. That ended any litigation that involved proving abuse. As of May 15, 2026, spouses can now sue for a divorce, plus compensation, based on abuse.

2. What must a victim prove?

To succeed under the new tort, a victim of IPV must prove three elements:

1. The abusive conduct occurred in an intimate relationship or after it ended (e.g. marriage, common law or cohabiting spouses).
2. The victim must prove that the abuser intended to be abusive.
3. The abusive conduct must be objectively proven to control, isolate and entrap the victim, which could be a single act or a pattern.

3. How can a victim prove her injuries?

Harm does not need to be proven independently. Once the three elements are established, the law presumes that harm has occurred. This removes a significant evidentiary burden from victims. But the amount of compensation will be in the discretion of the judge. In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia, the wife, was awarded $100,000 for 17 years of intermittent abuse.

4. How will judges calculate compensation?

The quantum of damages will depend on the extent of the harm and the specific factual circumstances of each case. The court stated that compensation must match the seriousness of the abuse. The purpose of the law is to restore the injured victim to the position they would have occupied had the abuse never occurred. The inquiry will encompass physical harm, psychological harm, financial harm and loss of autonomy, dignity and equality. Kuldeep Ahluwalia did not adduce expert evidence. Future claims will likely require expert evidence of trauma from mental health experts.

5. What does this tort not cover?

Courts are directed to refrain from imposing liability on a spouse for the “ordinary difficulties of intimate relationships” such as dishonesty, infidelity, emotional neglect, immaturity, or cold and dismissive conduct. A relationship that is antagonistic, disagreeable or simply unhappy does not give rise to compensation. The law is aimed at conduct that objectively crosses the line into coercion, control and the deliberate subordination of one partner to another.

6. Does IPV look forwards or backwards?

The new law is concerned with one thing only: rectifying a civil wrong. The tort looks backward to the wrongful conduct of the abuser, the harm that it caused the victim and what it would take to restore her to the position she would have occupied had the abuse never occurred.

7. How does IPV compensation mesh with support/property monies?

The SCC was alert to the risk of conflation — when two legal systems overlap in their purpose. The SCC was clear: these must be treated as two analytically distinct inquiries, with separate objectives, separate legal principles and separate outcomes. Each judge has discretion to determine the order of calculations. In some cases, there will not be adequate monies leftover after equalization payments, support and costs to satisfy compensation for IPV.

8. Will the new law resolve IPV? (CAUTION: This is my rant)

In the Ahluwalia decision, the attorneys general of Canada and British Columbia intervened to argue that victims need a remedy in court.

With all due respect, the courthouse is not the place for a remedy for IPV. It is, at best, the last resort.

A society that places its faith in litigation as the primary instrument for the protection of women from domestic violence has already failed. Canada’s attorneys general are not merely advocates before the courts. They are the chief law officers of their respective governments. They hold the machinery of the state in their hands — the capacity to legislate, to fund, to educate, to regulate and to protect. And it is precisely that machinery that has been chronically under-deployed in the fight against intimate partner violence, spousal abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour or any misconduct by one spouse against another that causes pain in the privacy and darkness of an intimate relationship.

If the attorneys general are genuinely committed to access to justice for victims, the question is not how to improve litigation options. The question is: what are you doing before the abuse starts? Education is the first line of defence. What are children taught in school, in the playground, in the lunchroom and at home about safety, dignity and equality in intimate relationships? What are new Canadians told about Canada’s tolerance of IPV? What are foreign university students learning about how Canada views spousal conduct?

IPV does not begin with a punch. It begins with patterns of control, manipulation, jealousy and isolation. Young people entering relationships should be taught what a healthy relationship looks like, feels like, what warning signs to watch for, or what resources exist if things go wrong.

This is not a court problem. This is an education problem. And education is squarely within the domain of the attorneys general’s governments. The attorneys general have the power to mandate and fund that education. If they do, less IPV will exist in Canada or be called out and ended early — before harm is caused.

For those already in abusive relationships, the most urgent need is not a legal remedy after the fact. It is a safe way out — immediately, safely and with the practical support necessary to make that exit viable and permanent. Safe exit from an abusive relationship is not simply a matter of courage or decision. It requires access to emergency shelters, financial support, legal aid, police, first responder training and support services that address housing, employment, mental health and child welfare.

These are not court functions. These are government functions. And they require sustained, serious and adequately funded commitment from the very offices whose representatives stood before the Supreme Court of Canada and argued that the solution lies with the judiciary.

In conclusion, justice for spouses in relationships begins long before the end of a relationship or the courthouse door. It begins in the classroom, where young people learn what a healthy relationship looks like. It continues in society where public education on spousal safety and equality is widespread. It persists in the counselling office, the employment program and the legal aid clinic.

The court can do what courts do: adjudicate disputes, award damages and call out bad behaviour after it happened. The Supreme Court of Canada has done that work admirably in Ahluwalia. But the court cannot educate a generation. It cannot influence people at the beginning of an intimate relationship. It cannot answer a crisis line at two in the morning. It cannot prevent an abuser from isolating his partner from her family, before she even realizes what is happening.

Those tasks belong to government. They belong to the offices of the attorneys general. And until those offices treat prevention, protection and support as their primary obligation — rather than arriving at the end of a survivor’s ordeal to argue about litigation procedures — the promise of access to justice will remain, for far too many women, a promise unfulfilled by Canada.

Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LLB, LLM (family law), C.S., is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a certified specialist in family law and was admitted as a fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. He is regularly retained as a divorce mediator, arbitrator and parenting coordinator. As a divorce mediator, he uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, courtroom experience and expert problem-solving skills in divorce mediation to help spouses reach fair, fast and co-operative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court. Read his resumé here. He can be reached at steve@benmor.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.