Landmark Supreme Court of Canada Decision Recognizing the Tort of Intimate Partner Violence

In today’s landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized intimate partner violence as a distinct legal basis for pursuing civil damages.  This decision stems from the case of a woman who endured years of physical and emotional abuse during a 16 year marriage.  The court said that intimate partner violence is a “pernicious social ill deserving the full attention of the law,” recognizing the extreme harm caused by the nature of this type of violence.  The court concluded that existing torts, such as assault and battery and intention infliction of emotional suffering, did not adequately address or recognize the significant and unique harms caused by intimate partner violence.  The court specifically recognized that unique to intimate partner violence is the harm to dignity, autonomy and equality. Intimate partner violence is recognized by the court to not be limited to just physical and psychological harm but also to include abusive behaviour by one partner to coherence and control the other, thereby depriving them of their autonomy. The court said that this This can include egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics like isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation.

The implications of this decision are significant, establishing a new legal avenue for victims to seek compensation for the unique harms caused by this type of violence, and providing recognition that the harms caused by intimate partner violence are unique.  The court provided a three part test for establishing liability under the new tort of intimate partner violence. That test includes the following elements:

1. The defendant’s wrongful conduct must have occurred during the course of an intimate partnership or in its immediate aftermath.
2. The defendant must have intentionally engaged in the abusive conduct. The plaintiff must only show that the defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct, not that they intended to control their intimate partner.
3. The plaintiff must show the conduct to be, on an objective measure, coercive control.

This decision turned on an understanding and recognition of coercive control.  That requires the trial judge to determine whether a reasonable person, fully apprised of the relevant context of the relationship, would have perceived the defendants acts when considered cumulatively, as amounting to an assertion of control over the plaintiff that has the effect of depriving them of their dignity, autonomy, and equality in the relationship. The key feature of coercive control is, on an objective measure, the breakdown of the plaintiff’s will, manifested through a diminished power to decide important matters in their own life or to meaningfully take part in decisions that affect the intimate partnership. The court recognized that it is this element of coercive control that can be found within an intimate partnership that distinguishes it from non intimate partner violence.

This landmark decision represents a significant advancement in laws and presents a significant source of recourse for victims of intimate partner violence.

With over thirty years of experience, Rose brings sound judgment and a well-rounded perspective to her diverse practice. Read more about Rose and her extensive expertise here.