For far too long coercive control was an insidious yet unrecognized form of social depravity and abuse, largely perpetrated against women in intimate relationships. Until recently, coercive control was ignored by professionals, including lawyers, though this is rapidly changing. The 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act recognized that “coercive and controlling” behaviour as a form of family violence that should be considered in making parenting orders, and in 2023 in Malaviya v. Dhir,[1] a family court judge recognized that this form of abuse may be the basis for setting aside a domestic contract. Parliament is in the process of enacting legislation[2] that will criminalize coercive or controlling conduct causing an intimate partner to believe that their safety is threatened. A pressing concern for the family justice professionals is the recent Supreme Court decision in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia,[3] which has created the new tort of “intimate partner violence” for cases where a court “objectively” identifies “coercive control.”
This article begins to address a major challenge that family lawyers and judges are facing, how to “objectively” establish that a woman has been a victim of coercive control. We argue that like other concepts in family law, like “parental alienation” or even “the best interests of the child,” there is not a single precise definition, let alone a psychological instrument, to establish that there has been “coercive control,” but that using existing social science research will allow family justice professionals to develop a workable approach to identify coercive control and provide compensation for genuine victims of this form of abuse without swallowing the entire family justice process in endless post-mortems over every failed intimate relationship.
Coercive Control: The Concept
While the abuse of women in intimate relationships has doubtless existed since the beginning of family relationships, it was only in the last quarter century that the American sociologist Evan Stark[4] identified the concept of “coercive control” as a type of intimate partner abuse. The term describes the effects of a pattern of conduct on individuals in abusive intimate relationships, most often women in heterosexual relationships, usually related to physical violence, threats or intimidation that results in them being psychologically abused and controlled by their partners. While there is often both physical or sexual violence and coercive control, they are conceptually distinct, and one may have occurred without the other. Coercive control can be difficult to identify as it is not the result of a single abusive event, but rather is produced by a pattern of abusive behaviour over time that may include isolation, financial control, surveillance, humiliation, intimidation and threats, and often but not always acts of physical or sexual violence. Some of the individual abusive acts may be minor, but the overall long term cumulative effect of the abuse may cause significant harm to the victim.
To be able to identify coercive control and its effects, one must first understand it. Although victims are clearly affected by coercive control, as with other forms of intimate partner violence, they may not be able to recognize that they have been abused in this way. A recently articulated view is that “coercive control can be defined as a pattern of behavior that seeks to take away the victim's liberty or freedom and strip away their sense of self and has rightly gained recognition as a serious form of intimate partner abuse, even in the absence of physical violence.”[5]
Coercive control has been characterized by two American researchers cited by the Supreme Court in Ahluwalia, Kelly and Johnson,[6] as “intimate partner terrorism”. Unlike a black eye, or a police report of an assault, the harm is often hidden. Coercive control is often called “invisible abuse,” or the invisible effects of physical or sexual violence. The victim may appear functional, educated, financially stable and professionally successful, yet internally, she may be living in a state of chronic fear and hypervigilance. What makes coercive control particularly insidious is that it develops gradually: the victim does not wake up one day suddenly being controlled. Instead, small restrictions become normal, boundaries erode slowly, independence diminishes, resistance becomes increasingly costly and compliance becomes a survival strategy. Over time, the victim begins organizing her life to try to avoid verbal abuse, degradation or physical violence.
Coercive control is highly destructive because it is not simply emotional distress but results in a loss of autonomy, and its effects often continue after separation. The victim gradually stops making independent decisions because decisions are filtered through a fear induced thought of “how will he react?” The abuser occupies her mental space even when not physically present. Coercive control changes the victim’s perception of reality. Victims often begin doubting their own judgement, their memory, their instincts and their ability to survive independently. This is why outsiders often ask, “why doesn’t this person just leave?” But this question misunderstands the nature of coercive control because the abuse makes leaving feel impossible.
It is often, but not always, accompanied by “visible” acts of physical or sexual violence, coercive control may create trauma without there necessarily having been physical or sexual violence. Victims of coercive control often exhibit signs and symptoms of anxiety, depression, panic attacks, sleep disturbance, hypervigilance, low self-esteem and having no other strong relationships. The victim’s nervous system remains activated because the victim never knows when criticism, punishment, humiliation or retaliation may occur.
Researchers[7] cited by the Supreme Court … recognize that coercive control is only one type of intimate partner violence, albeit the type with the greatest psychological damage. After separation, as the perpetrator’s control is threatened by the separation, new relationships or court proceedings, the risk of escalation of violence to reassert control can increase significantly.” However, research also establishes that not all intimate partner violence involves coercive control. Situational couple violence, violence occurring during arguments but without emotional dominance by one partner, is more common than coercive control among couples where physical violence is present.
The Supreme Court on Coercive Control in Ahluwalia
Justice Kasirer, writing for a majority of the Court in Ahluwalia[8] held that a new tort of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) should be recognized, as the traditional torts of assault, battery and intention infliction of emotional harm do not adequately recognize or address all of the harms caused by coercive control both during a relationship and after separation. He made clear that the new tort particularly reflects concerns about female victims of IPV, and he articulated a three element test for the new tort (emphasis added):
“a plaintiff must prove three elements: first, that the abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath; second, that the defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and third, that the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control…. Harm flows from proof of the intentional wrong because coercive control directly interferes with the plaintiff’s legal interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality within an intimate partnership. The extent of that harm may warrant a greater or lesser quantum of damages, depending on the circumstances.”
As noted in the concurring judgement of Justice Karakatsanis, this definition focuses on coercive control, and other types of family violence, such as situational couple violence, might be the basis of a tort action for assault or a criminal prosecution, but they lack the long-term psychological effects of coercive control are not included in the new tort.
Justice Kasirer clearly recognized limiting principles, warning that judges “must take care not to mischaracterize … all misconduct in a high-conflict breakdown as coercive control under the new tort.” He further emphasized that “[m]ere dysfunction of an intimate partnership” or “hurtful and sometimes vengeful behaviour” associated with high-conflict disputes would not satisfy the requirements of the new tort.
While the new tort provides socially and legally significant recognition and financial compensation for victims of intimate partner violence, it creates conceptual and evidentiary challenges for lawyers and judges in determining whether there has been coercive control, or merely “high conflict” or some other form of “dysfunction” in a relationship. As we will argue in the second part of this article, social science research and in appropriate cases expert evidence can help the justice system to “objectively” identify cases of coercive control in a reasonably predictable fashion.
Coercive Control in Ahluwalia
Based on the factual findings of the trial judge in Ahluwalia,[9] there was overwhelming evidence in that case that the wife was the victim of a long-term pattern of physical and psychological abuse and financial control that constituted coercive control, causing her significant long-term harm. Her evidence was corroborated from witnesses who observed some of the man’s psychological control and emotional abuse and its effects on the woman while they lived together, and medical records contemporaneous with the abuse. In other cases, there may be greater challenges in identifying and proving coercive control and distinguishing it from non-tortious “marital dysfunction.”
Social Science Research on Coercive Control
Researchers like Evan Stark, who first coined the term coercive control, recognize that “advocacy-driven public law-making based on coercive control…[has] spun far ahead of evidence-based research building or testing the model.” Although there is a wide variety of behaviours that may be part of a pattern of coercive controlling conduct and there is no validated instrument to conclusively identify coercive control or establish its severity, there is wide acceptance of the basic elements of the concept in the psychological literature.
A recently published study[10] by Australian researchers identified and provided a detailed discussion of four widely accepted domains that need to be assessed to determine whether coercive control has occurred: severe psychological abuse, coercive emotional abuse, restrictive isolation, and financial abuse.
Severe psychological abuse occurs when an abuser uses fear or threats, including threats to harm the victim, her children or pets, or restricts the victim’s access to essentials of daily living, like access to a phone, computer or medication, to keep the victim “compliant.” A history of having actually assaulted the partner or children may makes such threats more effective.
Coercive emotional abuse occurs when an abuser repeatedly degrades, shames or holds the victim responsible for perceived betrayals. This kind of abuse erodes the victim’s sense of self, leaving her empty and reliant on the abuser for a sense of identity and belonging. This may include screaming or breaking things or driving erratically while the victim or children are in the car.
Restrictive isolating abuse occurs when the victim feels that she must seek permission to just function day-to-day. An abuser may control or monitor the victim’s daily activities, restrict who she can socialize with and behave possessively. The abuser dictates career choices, social contacts, and lifestyle. There is no autonomy, only obedience. A particularly disturbing aspect of this monitoring and isolation is that the abuser presents their control as acts of love, care and concern, but such restrictive and isolating behaviours often entrap the victim to create greater dependence on the abuser.
Financial abuse occurs when the abuser controls the victim’s access to money, even if she has her own earnings, bank accounts or credit cards. It also involves making all financial decisions without consultation and threatening the victim that she and her children will be impoverished if she leaves the relationship.
While there is no methodology to precisely determine whether a woman has been a victim of coercive control, by considering the frequency and nature of the abusive acts in each of these four domains and their effects on the woman, it is possible to assess whether she has been subjected to coercive control and its degree of severity. Further, it is necessary to consider the effect of any acts of physical or sexual abuse that may have established a context for the coercive control.
Proving Coercive Control
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ahluwlaia requires consideration of the effect and character of the abuser’s conduct, assessed “objectively” in the context of the relationship. Justice Kasirer recognized that coercive control is often subtle, cumulative, and normalized within a relationship. The objective standard requires the court to identify and examine the entire pattern of conduct, the power dynamics between the parties pre and post separation, the cumulative impact on the victim’s autonomy and operation as an independent person, and whether the conduct amounted to domination or control.
Before applying the coercive control assessment framework discussed above, a court will have to be satisfied on the civil standard of proof that there was in fact an abusive pattern of coercive conduct that affected the victim. This will generally require a trial that considers the arc of the partners’ relationship. The court will be obliged consider not just individual acts but their context and cumulative effect.
Courts must be sensitive to the reality that parties in any case, but especially a family law case involving allegations of intimate partner violence, individuals will tend to have a retrospective reinterpretation and memory of past events. While significant issues can only be determined by an assessment of the credibility of the parties about events that occurred in private, there will often be an expectation that the parties can provide some other evidence to support their narratives.
Since acts of coercive control largely occur in private, over many years, often through seemingly minor acts that only become visibly abusive when viewed collectively, family lawyers representing victims need to gather and examine records from counsellors, medical practitioners, financial institutions, email and text messages and social media accounts to establish a pattern of coercive controlling acts.[11] The widespread use of electronic communications between intimate partners should make it easier to establish coercive control than it might have been in the past. Although inevitably there will be no witnesses to many of the abusive acts, there may well be friends, relatives or professionals, such as a family doctor, who can corroborate some part of the claimant’s story. Evidence of physical or sexual assault, such as medical evidence, pictures or recordings may help buttress a victim’s claim of coercive control. Conversely, the absence of any corroborative evidence and a completely subjective and retrospective account of coercive control by a victim may make it difficult for a claimant to establish her claim of the tort of intimate partner violence.
The Supreme Court in Ahluwalia makes clear that expert evidence is not required to establish a claim, and of course an expert retained by a party cannot simply be an “oath helper” to retrospectively corroborate a claimant’s story, but expert evidence may help a court to assess whether a claimant’s narrative is consistent with a coercive control framework, as well to help assess the severity of the abuse and extent of a damage award.
The Way Forward
Ahluwalia challenges courts, lawyers, and society as a whole to reconsider how abuse is recognized and addressed. The Supreme Court has affirmed that it is wrong for one partner in an intimate relationship to exercises power through manipulation, domination and control. The decision not only fills a longstanding gap in the law but also sends a powerful message that coercive control is not merely a relationship problem. By recognizing coercive control as a distinct legal wrong, Ahluwalia acknowledges a reality long understood by victims, researchers and advocates: that abuse is not defined solely by acts of physical or sexual violence, but by patterns of control and domination that systematically deprive individuals of their autonomy, dignity, and equality.
The decision in Ahluwalia also poses significant challenges for lawyers, judges and self-represented litigants, as well as for researchers. While social science research will help, courts will, at least initially, struggle to establish a workable and predictable framework for determining whether there has been coercive control. Researchers must also continue to develop more reliable instruments to assess the nature and severity of coercive control.
While still in its infancy, the tort of Intimate Partner Violence now affords victims an opportunity to tell their story that was always meant to stay hidden. More importantly, it allows courts to render decisions that ultimately recognize a deep harm, compensate the victim and restore their human dignity.
Nandishi Bekah obtained her law degree with distinction and an LL.M with specialization in Dispute Resolution and is a Family Law lawyer at Stanchieri Family Law in Toronto. Nicholas Bala is a Distinguished Professor of Law at Queen’s University. This article was previously published in Canada Law360.
[1] Malaviya v. Dhir, 2023 ONSC 1993.
[2] Bill C-16, 45th Parliament, 1st Session, as amended by Committee, May 26, 2026.
[3] 2026 SCC 16.
[4] See e.g Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81-104.
[5] Reiter, E., & Pollack, D. (2026, May 27). Behind the perfect family portrait. Expert opinion. Texas Lawyer. https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2026/05/27/behind-the-perfect-family-portrait/
[6] Kelly, Joan B., and Michael P. Johnson. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimatepartner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 476.
[7] Ibid.
[8] 2016 SCC 16, at para 5.
[9] 2022 ONSC 1303, per Mandhane J.
[10] McLindon, E.V.M., Brown, C., McKenzie, M., Tarzia, L. and Hegarty, K., 2026. Development and validation of the psychological abuse in relationships scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 41(9-10), pp.1985-2008.
[11] Reiter, E., & Pollack, D. (2026, May 27). Behind the perfect family portrait. Expert opinion. Texas Lawyer. https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2026/05/27/behind-the-perfect-family-portrait/
