Dear Erica, all

Thank you very much for this. It is interesting, if troubling. I have
to say that I incline to agree with the first instance judgment as a
matter of principle.

Kind regards

Ger

On 7/7/23, Erika Chamberlain <echambe@uwo.ca> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision today in Ahluwalia v
> Ahluwalia:
> https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/21597/index.do,
> reversing the lower court's decision to recognize a new tort of "family
> violence."
>
> The original decision arose in the context of divorce proceedings (2022 ONSC
> 1303). While the Superior Court judge found that the torts of battery and
> assault were established, she found that they did not adequately capture
> "the cumulative harm associated with the pattern of coercion and control
> that lays at the heart of family violence cases and which creates the
> conditions of fear and helplessness. These patterns can be cyclical and
> subtle, and often go beyond assault and battery to include complicated and
> prolonged psychological and financial abuse" (para 54 of the ONSC
> decision).
>
> The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the torts of battery, assault
> and intentional infliction of emotional distress were sufficient to address
> abusive behaviour: "new torts should not be created where existing torts
> suffice" (para 92). This is consistent with the Court of Appeal's decisions
> in Jones v Tsige (2012) (recognizing the tort of intrusion on seclusion) and
> Merrifield v Canada (2019) (refusing to recognize a tort of harassment).
>
> The Court of Appeal also declined to recognize a narrower tort of "coercive
> control," which would have focused on an intention to create conditions of
> fear or helplessness in an intimate relationship. This tort would have been
> distinguished from intentional infliction of emotional distress in that it
> would not require proof of harm in the form of a "visible and provable
> injury" (para 113ff). The Court of Appeal concluded that this would be a
> significant change in the law, best left to the legislature.
>
> Because existing torts were proved by the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal
> upheld the compensatory damages award of $100,000. It eliminated the $50,000
> punitive damages award imposed by the trial judge.
>
> Erika
>
> Erika Chamberlain, LL.B., Ph.D. (Cantab.)
> Professor and Dean
> Faculty of Law, Western University
> London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7
> echambe@uwo.ca<mailto:echambe@uwo.ca>, (519) 661.2111 x.80036
>
>
>
> You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations
> group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in this
> conversation, reply all to this message.
>
> View group
> files<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/obligations@uwo.ca/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=files&GuestId=b9ad78f9-49f9-4b6a-846e-91ad5eae295c>
> | Leave
> group<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/obligations@uwo.ca/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=leave&GuestId=b9ad78f9-49f9-4b6a-846e-91ad5eae295c>
> | Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups<https://aka.ms/o365g>
>
>