May 22, 2026

Rohan Haté was recently quoted by Insurance Business Canada regarding the insurance coverage implications arising from the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.

The Court's 6-3 decision has been widely described as a significant development in Canadian tort law. For the first time, the Supreme Court formally recognized a distinct tort of intimate partner violence (IPV), creating a cause of action that addresses patterns of coercive control, financial abuse, intimidation, isolation, and other forms of non-physical abuse that have historically been difficult to capture within existing tort frameworks.

While much of the discussion surrounding the decision has focused on its impact for survivors, the ruling also raises important questions for insurers, defence counsel, and coverage litigators.

Coverage Questions Insurers Will Need to Address

In his comments to Insurance Business Canada, Rohan Haté discussed several areas where coverage disputes are likely to emerge as courts and insurers begin applying the new tort.

The Duty to Defend Will Be a Key Battleground

One of the most immediate issues is the insurer's duty to defend.

As Rohan Haté noted, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. It is determined based on the allegations contained in the pleadings rather than the ultimate outcome of the litigation.

As a result, claims involving allegations of intimate partner violence may trigger defence obligations even where indemnity remains uncertain. Insurers will need to carefully assess each claim on its specific facts rather than relying on standard coverage positions.

The Indemnity Analysis Remains Unsettled

Although many practitioners have pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v. Scalera as the starting point for analyzing coverage of intentional conduct in intimate relationships, the majority's reasons in Ahluwalia suggest that the issue may not be as straightforward as it first appears.

The Court expressly distinguished Scalera and referenced a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision addressing related issues. These references have prompted discussion about whether future courts may take a more nuanced approach when considering indemnity obligations arising from claims involving the new tort.

The result is likely to be increased coverage litigation as parties test the boundaries of existing policy wording.

Existing Policy Language May Face New Challenges

Another issue highlighted in the article involves the structure of standard intentional act exclusions.

Most exclusion clauses were drafted long before coercive control was recognized as an independent legal wrong. Conduct such as financial surveillance, isolation, monitoring communications, and other non-physical forms of control may not fit neatly within traditional assumptions about intentional physical or psychiatric injury.

As claims involving the new tort proceed through the courts, plaintiffs may argue that not every form of intimate partner violence automatically falls within existing exclusion language.

Whether courts accept those arguments remains to be seen, but the issue is likely to receive significant judicial attention.

Reserves and Underwriting Considerations

The damages framework discussed in Ahluwalia may also require insurers to revisit reserves and policy wording.

With courts now recognizing a distinct cause of action for intimate partner violence, compensatory and aggravated damages may become a significant component of future awards. Insurers may wish to evaluate whether existing exclusion language adequately addresses these claims or whether more explicit wording will be required.

The decision may also prompt renewed discussion regarding reserve practices on files involving allegations that resemble the elements identified by the Supreme Court.

Potential Impact Beyond Intimate Partner Violence Claims

The reasoning in Ahluwalia may have implications extending beyond family law disputes.

The Court's recognition of patterned conduct as an independent legal wrong could influence future litigation involving workplace harassment, bullying, and other claims involving ongoing patterns of conduct. Insurers and Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) carriers may be watching closely as courts consider how broadly the reasoning should apply.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court's decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia represents a significant development in Canadian law. While the creation of the new tort addresses an important legal gap, it also raises complex questions regarding insurance coverage, pleading strategy, defence obligations, indemnity, and policy interpretation.

As these issues move through the courts, the next wave of appellate decisions will likely shape how insurers, counsel, and policyholders navigate this evolving area of law.

Rohan Haté and his team at ZSRH Litigation Lawyers LLP continue to monitor developments closely and regularly advise clients on insurance coverage disputes, personal injury matters, accident benefits claims, and related litigation issues.

To discuss a coverage question or a file involving these issues, contact ZSRH Litigation Lawyers LLP at info@zsrhlaw.ca.

To read the full Insurance Business Canada article, visit the publication's website.