The challenge of proving coercive control

Connectez-vous pour écouter l'article

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of a tort of intimate partner violence has given litigants a new avenue for seeking damages. But for lawyers, the challenge is translating a client’s account of coercive control into evidence that establishes a legally actionable wrong.

Unlike an assault or other discrete incident, coercive control may emerge from the cumulative effect of behaviour over months or years. Proving it requires lawyers to investigate the relationship in context, identify evidence that might previously have seemed peripheral, and put forward an account that doesn't overwhelm the court.

“The pressure on lawyers to be mindful of curation and presenting the narrative in a coherent way is increasing day by day,” says Julie Hannaford, a Toronto family lawyer who represented the appellant in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.

“(We have to) help the court distinguish between a dysfunctional, unhappy, mean-spirited relationship and one that has the earmarks of coercive control.”

Building the evidentiary record

In Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court recognized that intimate partner violence can involve coercive and controlling conduct that undermines a partner’s dignity, autonomy and equality. The majority noted that, in addition to “egregious acts of physical and psychological violence,” it included isolation, humiliation, surveillance, financial control, sexual coercion and intimidation.

The question for practitioners is how to demonstrate that conduct in a courtroom. Anna Matas, a Toronto civil litigator who represented the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic as an intervenor in the case, emphasizes the importance of context.

^{Anna Matas}

“I think of (it) as the backdrop of a particular relationship,” she says.

While it need not have been long-standing, lawyers must consider the full picture of a relationship and how it may have changed over time.

Matas distinguishes evidence of bad behaviour from evidence connecting that behaviour to domination or control. Repeated verbal abuse, for example, may be significant where it is used to undermine a partner’s self-worth and maintain control, while an argument between partners, without that context, may carry a different legal significance.

A claimant doesn’t need to produce independent corroboration for every allegation.

“In most of the cases of intimate partner violence … most probative evidence will be oral,” she says.

Although medical records, witnesses and other supporting evidence can help, they may not exist, particularly when a partner has been prevented from seeking outside assistance.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s 2026 decision in Mitchell v. Mitchell illustrates the potential value of a broad evidentiary record. The case involved allegations of abuse over a 54-year marriage and evidence from the claimant, the parties’ adult children, medical and police records, photographs, recordings and financial documents.

The court awarded the wife, Lynda Mitchell, $400,000 in compensatory damages, including $100,000 for the distinct harm associated with coercive control.

Matas cautions against treating Mitchell as a template that requires the same volume of evidence in every case, given that the availability of evidence was exceptional.

There’s also the challenge of establishing credibility while avoiding stereotypes about how a survivor should behave. She says the assumption that someone would have left if the abuse were serious misunderstands the dynamics of coercive control.

Probing relationships

So, how has Ahluwalia changed family law files? Hannaford says it’s prompted a more detailed examination of clients’ relationships from the outset.

“Figuring out whether there has been coercive control is a nuanced inquiry,” she says.

Trauma-informed intake means probing the fabric of the relationship to find out who managed the finances, who paid for what, how discretionary spending was handled, and how major household decisions were made.

Clients may have normalized behaviour that suggests control when viewed in context. Hannaford says a detailed chronological account can help reveal connections they may not have recognized themselves. She asks clients to write out the story of their relationship, including specific incidents, so that a pattern may emerge.

The resulting file often draws on bank statements, employment records, text messages, emails, WhatsApp exchanges and social media. Lawyers must also consider how to preserve electronic evidence, establish its admissibility, and select relevant material from potentially enormous collections.

“You’re harvesting 20,000 or 200,000 text messages,“ Hannaford says.

“Courts need curated selection.”

She also warns that technology can extend coercive control beyond separation through connected devices, cameras, and remotely controlled household systems. For that reason, evidence preservation and digital safety need attention early in a case.

The same evidence may also affect other family law issues. In situations where abuse has impaired a client’s ability to work, lawyers may need to consider its implications for spousal support alongside a tort claim for damages. How courts address potential overlap between remedies remains an important question.

Proving a pattern

Neha Chugh, a criminal and family lawyer in Cornwall, Ontario, and a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, sees a difficult balance between thoroughly investigating coercive control and keeping litigation affordable.

^{Neha Chugh}

“I don’t need to have a video of my client being victimized or brutalized, but I do need explanations of the circumstantial puzzle,” she says.

Financial records, paycheque deposits, and evidence of one partner’s control over household accounts can help, but ultimately, “it’s a very expensive puzzle” to piece together.

The reality is that the cost of advancing a tort claim may be beyond the means of some claimants. Respondents may also lack the resources to pay damages.

Chugh, who represented the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, the South Asian Legal Clinic of British Columbia and the South Asian Bar Association as intervenors in Ahluwalia, says cultural context is also relevant in these cases.

Household arrangements, financial roles, and extended-family relationships may be shaped by cultural expectations, making it especially important to investigate how control operated in the particular relationship, rather than assume that a single model applies to all families.

At this stage, Hannaford says lawyers and judges are navigating the new tort without an established pleading template. She’s received a surge in requests to amend existing family law claims to seek damages, sometimes close to trial and without sufficient detail. Those amendments can create additional procedural steps and preparation costs for both parties.

The challenge, then, is to identify the evidence that matters, preserve it properly, and present it in a way that helps the court distinguish coercive control from ordinary relationship conflict.

For Hannaford, the transition brings both obligation and opportunity.

“It’s a very exciting time to be a lawyer, and to be a family law lawyer,” she says.

“It’s a heavy responsibility, but it’s such a sea change that at the end of the day will yield justice.”