05/18/2026
As we enter the May family law trial sittings in many courts, the Ahluwalia decision will be top of mind. It is not lost on me that it was released the business day before trial sittings start in my local courts. Our trial judges will be grappling with this in real time over the coming weeks.
Trials are the ultimate failure of the family law system. Coercive control and intimate partner violence are often elements in cases that simply will not settle. Allegations are often made on both sides. Coercive control is likely present in many trial files, but it is not the same as high conflict.
The difficult cases are not going to be obvious. Some cases will have extensive documentation or prior criminal involvement. Those cases are often easier, even if the dynamic is complex.
Coercive control is quiet. In its most pernicious form, it is invisible.
In the most complex cases, establishing the pattern will be all but impossible. The survivors know that. They are likely to settle, or decide not to leave. Family law professionals ought to be routinely screening, and asking questions early - and trying to settle, when possible. Litigation creates another venue for coercive control.
The questions that inform judicial analysis will be:
- Are the alleged acts proven?
- Was the conduct intentional?
- Was there genuine coercive control?
i.e. Was one party exercising power over the other, or was the relationship simply volatile, or unhealthy?
- Was one person’s autonomy meaningfully constrained?
In the most difficult cases, ironically, proving the individual acts will be easy, they may even be admitted. It is crucial to read what the SCC said about intent and pattern.
Trial judges are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the way people reinterpret relationships after they end, and how litigation has proceeded.
The real problem: Some claims will involve genuine coercive control. Others will reflect mutual dysfunction, dysregulation, or unhealthy dynamics that do not meet the legal threshold. Clear evidence to distinguish between the two will be crucial.
The most compelling evidence will be:
- Evidence from therapists, parenting coaches, and others who worked with the parties, especially when they worked with the parties together, either during the relationship or after separation, and who observed the dynamic directly. Admissibility of that evidence may be an issue.
- Evidence from parenting professionals involved with the child, especially neutral third parties who are familiar with coercive control, for example, the Office of Children's Lawyer clinicians, and CAS child protection workers.
- Financial records, business records, health records.
- Screening tools administered by domestic violence agencies, midwives, and other healthcare professionals may also be helpful.
Admissions by the alleged perpetrator to third parties, and claims made by them will also be important. In many cases, these will be more important than what the survivors say.
