A remedy for people who can afford it?

Connectez-vous pour écouter l'article

When the Supreme Court of Canada created a new tort of intimate-partner violence in May 2026, family lawyers Shelley Hounsell and Vanessa Lam joined us to contemplate its likely effects. Four months later, we check in to see how things are working out.

Among the questions on the agenda: Is this proving to be merely a remedy for rich people? What is the role of expert witnesses? And should these claims be folded into family law proceedings or treated as distinct civil matters?

Shelley Hounsell of Presse Mason in Halifax is back, along with Tiffany Paulsen of Robertson Stromberg in Saskatoon, and Joanna Radbord of McCarthy Hansen & Company in Toronto.

Links:

• Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16
• A turning point for a tort of family violence (Verdicts & Voices S4:E14)

Verdicts & Voices is a legal current affairs podcast presented by the Canadian Bar Association. With her retinue of expert guests, host Alison Crawford keeps listeners up to date on news, views, and stories about the law and the justice system in Canada.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the CBA.

Transcript

Hello everyone, it’s great to have you back to Verdicts & Voices, your weekly legal affairs podcast from the Canadian Bar Association. I’m your host, Alison Crawford.

Three months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, and it created the new tort of intimate-partner violence. Over the summer, I started to wonder how the tort of IPV was working in practice. After all, only a few jurisdictions have unified family courts. And many people who practice family law haven’t filed tort claims, and courts across the country have issued a variety of practice directions.

So joining me now to tell us how things are actually rolling out on the front lines of family law are three fantastic practitioners. Tiffany Paulsen practices family law at Robertson Stromberg in Saskatoon. In Halifax, Shelley Hounsell is senior counsel at Pressé Mason. And joining us from Toronto is Joanna Radbord. She is a partner at McCarthy Hansen and Company. Earlier this month, the Ontario Bar Association Foundation awarded her a Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowship to prepare a symposium or conference called Reimagining Family Law Post-Ahluwalia.

So welcome, all of you, to the podcast.

Tiffany Paulsen

Thanks for having us.

Joanna Radbord

Thanks so much.

Shelley Hounsell

Thanks very much.

Alison

It’s great to have you all here. Now, Tiffany, when we spoke earlier, we talked about the intense media coverage that Ahluwalia got after the Supreme Court decision. So, those cases — for those who don’t know, the Supreme Court generally issues its decisions on a Friday — how long did it take for you to receive inquiries from clients about this new tort?

Tiffany Paulsen

The decision, you’re right, was released on a Friday, and by Monday morning I had a lineup of emails and phone calls from clients wanting to inquire about the impact of the decision and how it might affect their case.

Alison

Wow. And what kind of situations were they in, where they were wondering about this?

Tiffany Paulsen

Similar to the fact pattern in Ahluwalia, it was, you know, primarily women, frankly, who were in intimate partner relationships and who had experienced patterns of coercive control in their relationships. What was interesting and surprising to me is that we often hear a lot of armchair critics on laws and decisions, but the people who contacted me really had a very good understanding of the impact of the decision and what it meant.

I don’t think it’s too dramatic to say that it really was a watershed moment in Canadian legal history for that decision to come out, and people were listening.

Alison

So how did you handle them?

Tiffany Paulsen

Well, you know, the first thing we had to do was read the decision, which — I mean, it’s a big decision, and there are a lot of amazing things that were said by the majority in that case. The other bit of a twist on it is that it was the creation of a new tort, and tort claims are typically handled by civil litigators, not necessarily family law litigators. So there’s some collaboration, at least with the folks in my office — the civil litigators — as to what it means for them and what it means for me in the family law area, and how, and if, the two intersect.

Alison

Right. And what are the practice directions in Saskatchewan?

Tiffany Paulsen

In Saskatchewan, so far, the courts are asking that the claim — a statement of claim, so a civil action — be initiated first. As I understand it, in some jurisdictions you may be able to fold this new tort into the existing family law action. In Saskatchewan, the courts are asking that a separate claim be initiated, and then there’s discussion about whether the two, the family law proceedings and the civil proceedings, are merged at some point in time.

Alison

Okay. And what about you, Shelley, in Halifax? What has your experience been so far?

Shelley Hounsell

I have not had anybody ask about the tort of intimate-partner violence, but most of my practice involves people who have experienced intimate-partner violence or family violence. So I was surprised that people haven’t mentioned it to me. But I have, separate from that, so not under my family law hat — we’re a civil litigation firm, and I have had people approach myself and other partners at the firm about pursuing a claim against a former partner under the new intimate-partner violence tort.

And our court – we’re a fully unified province – and there’s been no formal direction, but informally we’ve been asked not to include a tick box on the already established petition for divorce or notice of application. Instead, we’re to file a statement of claim and proceed in the normal civil route — so, as if it’s a civil action, which it is, but not a family action.

Alison

Joanna, I can see you rolling your eyes a little bit. What’s your reaction to hearing these approaches?

Joanna Radbord

I’m disappointed. From my reading, the Supreme Court of Canada was clear that this is supposed to be done in family law cases as part of the family law claim. That’s what I’ve been doing for years. That’s the practice in Toronto. So, yeah, quite different in practice.

Alison

So what do you think should happen?

Joanna Radbord

The Supreme Court of Canada — not just the majority, and not just Justice Karakatsanis… Like, it’s clear that there’s an access to justice problem in law currently, and that the creation of the tort of intimate-partner violence is not meant to compound that problem. It’s meant to facilitate access to justice for survivors.

So how can the court, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s direction, facilitate access? The family court judges need to take ownership, family lawyers need to take ownership. We’ve got to learn how to do screening, and we’ve got to incorporate an understanding of intimate partner violence and coercive control at every stage of a family law case.

It makes no sense to be spending more money. Most survivors of intimate partner violence don’t have the financial means to afford having civil counsel and family law counsel. And so it’s part of your family law case that you’re addressing intimate partner violence as already part of your family law case, as part of the best-interests-of-the-child test, if you have children — and most survivors do. So it’s part of the case already. You’ve got to add the tort claim as part of your family law case.

Alison

Now, I know there’s no utopia here, and we live in a federation where things happen at different paces in everything in our society. But who do you think, or what organization, is responsible for trying to get uniformity, or to make things happen in a way that access to justice is equitable across Canada on something like this? Anyone?

Joanna Radbord

Well, you know, this is a CBA podcast, and I know the CBA has been working on all of these issues. Lawyers — not just family lawyers, but lawyers in all different areas of practice — have been talking about the Ahluwalia decision. It’s having a big impact on the ground in poverty law kinds of cases, so human rights cases, employment, income security, housing. Like, the understanding of coercive control addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada is impacting survivors of all income levels. We’ve got to incorporate that, and we’ve got to have a collective conversation as a bar about how we make rights real. And that means making sure that they’re accessible.

Alison

Is there — do you think, from a judge’s perspective, there’s a role for any judicial organization? No one wants to say that.

[laughter]

Shelley Hounsell

No, I don’t think it is — it’s not for the judges. I mean, the judges are independent, and that’s very important for us to preserve. The administrators of the court can help create forms and processes, and the civil procedure rules are guided by judges, and then input from the bar. I feel that even if we are going to — I’m a little on the fence about our ability, or mandate, I guess I should say — to pursue a tort in every case. It has to be the choice of the victim. And there are a lot of considerations when we represent victims of abuse about how they want to pursue their case to reach a resolution, and what a resolution means to them.

But as a family lawyer, I believe it’s my responsibility to address a tort claim if my client wishes to bring one forward — and it could be one of the other, more traditional torts. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to give this case to a civil litigator, because I am a civil litigator as well as a family law lawyer. And whether or not I have to proceed in a different court, I do feel the Unified Family Court has a mandate under the Judicature Act to hear all

cases, and that includes the tort case. So if I have to file a separate statement of claim, that’s fine. But I do believe eventually we’ll work out the wrinkles of whether or not we have to go to a different building to have the case heard.

Alison

Tiffany, what do you think is going to happen in Saskatchewan? I mean, court practice directions sometimes change.

Tiffany Paulsen

Of course. But right now, the reality is, in Saskatchewan anyways, if you’d like to pursue a claim with this new tort of intimate partner violence, you need to issue a separate statement of claim.

Alison

Right. Now, there’s not a lot of jurisprudence on this, obviously, because it’s so soon after, but there was a case that caught a lot of attention — it was the first one, Mitchell v. Mitchell. Who would like to start by reflecting on that decision?

Tiffany Paulsen

What strikes me — and also strikes me as part of the Supreme Court case — is, as much as I support this, and I hope we continue to pursue and make people accountable for coercive control, this is a remedy for people who can afford it. And that’s a difficult… To me, where the best policy changes would be — while this remedy may be available to all partners, all victims of interpersonal violence, that doesn’t mean they have the finances to pursue this. It doesn’t mean they have the finances to bring another claim. And on the flip side, if we’re talking about awarding damages, enforcement of those orders and collection on those orders, those are all real logistical issues. So, to me, an important part of the discussion that needs to happen right now is how to properly compensate, as well as make these remedies available to folks who simply can’t afford litigating in our judicial system.

Alison

Yeah. And Shelley, that was obviously something we spoke about last time you were on to talk about Ahluwalia.

Shelley Hounsell

So, the reason I said I’m on the fence is for the points my friends here have raised, and that’s about access to justice and being able to afford it. But if I take off my family lawyer’s hat and I wear my litigator’s hat, this is an opportunity to regulate conduct, in the way that we regulate conduct through — if there’s a car accident, we know that the person driving, if they’re found at fault, their insurance — or they, if they don’t have insurance — will end up compensating the victims for their actions. And so it moderates behaviour in our society, because it reflects our societal expectations.

The same can be said for this tort. It can send a very strong message to families and partners that we have a standard of expectation of behaviour between each other, and if you fail to meet that societal standard, you will have to pay damages and compensate the victim. So, there’s a bigger picture here if we put on our litigators’ hats instead of our family lawyers’ hats.

When we look at it from a torts perspective, we can look at, say, a person who suffered family violence and experienced PTSD, there’s a significant impact on their ability to work. Did they have periods of short-term and long-term disability that weren’t related to child care? They were related to the treatment at home. We need expert evidence to support this claim, but that’s not overly challenging — a psychiatrist could certainly help us with that. And we could go beyond simply compensating for spousal support analysis and guidelines, and we could look at wage loss.

Alison

I’m going to turn to Joanna now and say — you know, so Mitchell, that case out of Ontario, was a wealthy family, and it was an extraordinarily long marriage — a marriage that began in the nineteen sixties — and there was significant violence. What were your main takeaways from this? What can we learn from this that you feel will be useful in the future?

Joanna Radbord

Justice Vella definitely knows what she’s doing when it comes to damages. She practised as a lawyer in the civil sexual assault arena. So, very helpful, Mitchell. But I do think that we could get higher damage awards still. I think one of the lessons for me is the importance of family lawyers talking to civil litigators. Just after I finished saying, “yes, family lawyers, we can do this,” it’s always good to phone a friend. That’s such an important lesson — you’ve got to make connections. So, through organizations like the CBA, make sure that family lawyers are also talking to your civil litigation friends, because they can do things we can’t do. They can do claims for clients who don’t have a lot of money, because they can do contingency fees, and family lawyers can’t. So that’s super helpful on the access-to-justice piece.

Then, as I read the decision, we don’t actually need expert evidence. Kind of radical. But the recommendation, I’d say, would be to use participant experts, maybe a hybrid participant-expert/litigation-expert.

So, yeah, lots of lessons to be learned by talking to our civil litigation colleagues, and also in other areas of practice, so that we can make the best use of this amazing decision.

Alison

And Tiffany, is that something you’ve found so far, in terms of collaborating with your partners at your firm?

Tiffany Paulsen

I’d say the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada case tried to be, I thought, quite clear that you don’t need all these really expensive experts. They came out and said that. And I was thankful to see that, and purposely so, because that provides direction to trial judges. We don’t need all these expensive, fancy experts in here to make out these claims. And this is rare, but you saw in the Mitchell case, the adult children testified.

Alison

Go ahead, Shelley.

Shelley Hounsell

I agree we don’t need experts to establish coercive control. We have six years of solid case law, from the Supreme Court of Canada to provincial court levels across Canada, making it very clear that they can make findings based on the facts and evidence the parties produce at trial. It’s if we want to increase the damage awards, that’s where we’re going to have to look to some experts, and we don’t have to make this as complicated as personal injury practices has become, but we can certainly find medical evidence to support, for example, wage losses from a different perspective, not a spousal-support compensatory claim, but a wage-loss claim. If there’s enough money to go around, you would have to assess the possible outcome and payment for this case before you’d get into that.

I am very concerned about any involvement of children in these cases. And that’s why the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear that the witness who is victim is sufficient to tell their story about experiencing coercive control, and the finding can be made. That was the big concern at the beginning, when the Divorce Act amendments were made. And so, judges were very clear that experts were not required then, and so I’d be concerned about us thinking now, because we’re establishing a tort, we suddenly need more witnesses. I don’t think we do.

Alison

Also, for Mitchell, it is important to note that that case was ongoing, and the judge was very keen to get this new tort, so they kind of added it in in the middle of the proceedings, right? So it is an unusual precedent. But what I think is fascinating is that, listening to this podcast in five years, I think people are going to be really fascinated to hear from you all — to hear what you were thinking, and how the law was developing on the ground right now.

I’d like to thank you all for sharing your thoughts and your experience with this new tort of intimate-partner violence so far. Thank you so much.

I’ve been speaking with family law lawyers Shelley Hounsell of Pressé Mason in Halifax, Joanna Radbord with McCarthy Hansen and Company in Toronto, and — in beautiful Saskatoon — Tiffany Paulsen joined us from her office at Robertson Stromberg.

Thank you for tuning in to Verdicts & Voices, your weekly podcast from the Canadian Bar Association. I’m your host, Alison Crawford, and I’m looking forward to seeing you again next week.