NuriLaw Professional Corporation

05/15/2026

The much-anticipated Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia decision is out: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do

In a 6-3 decision, the SCC recognized a new tort of “Intimate Partner Violence” rather than the tort of “Family Violence” which was created at trial. The broader Family Violence framing was rejected because the intimacy at issue between spouses or romantic partners is “qualitatively different” from that between other family members.

The SCC created a three-part test (para 184):

1. The wrongful conduct must occur during or after an intimate partnership.

(An intimate partnership is "a relationship of close personal connection, sustained over a period of time, and marked by mutual interdependence, care or commitment, and the presence of domestic, emotional, financial or physical intimacy" (para 102))

2. The defendant needs to have intentionally engaged in the “abusive conduct”.

(Abusive Conduct can include physical and sexual violence; emotional and psychological abuse, including verbal abuse; harassment, humiliation, and denigration; financial control, stalking, and surveillance; behaviour that isolates a partner from others, or that denies a partner access to educational, employment, and recreational opportunities; litigation abuse; and threatening conduct, including threatening to harm the children or take them away, and threatening to commit su***de (para 207)).

3. The conduct must constitute coercive control.

(Coercive Control refers to the cumulative impact of actions that deprive a plaintiff of their dignity, autonomy and equality in the relationship. The key feature is a breakdown of the plaintiff’s will, manifested through a diminished power to decide important matters in their own life or to meaningfully take part in decisions that affect the intimate partnership (para 208)).

The Court stated that objective proof of the above would result in an award of general damages. The claimant need not prove consequential damages. However, it is unclear whether this new tort requires expert evidence.

Application of these principles in the lower courts will be the story to watch.

05/01/2026

NuriLaw Professional Corporation has expanded. Our second office is now open at Bay and Richmond — 80 Richmond Street West, 18th Floor — with a great view of the courthouse.

Thanks to Weston Powell of Powell Litigation for making it happen.

If you're in the area, come by and say hello.

01/12/2026

We are thrilled to sponsor this Thursday’s SABA event! It’s shaping up to be an incredible night, and we’d love to see you there.

A fireside chat with esteemed panelists who will discuss and share their experiences, what to do and what not to do in today's modern legal landscape. Addressing hot topics in law, our panelists will address controversial issues and also be taking audience questions. Don’t miss this exciting opportunity and come spend an evening with great legal minds as we share knowledge, experience and some laughs!

Speaker Panel: Ena Chadha, Rahool Agarwal, Kabir Sharma, Jaskaran Grewal, Alanna Sarju, Gobind Grewal

Moderated By: Raghav Jain and Nevethan Balendra

🗓️: Thursday, January 15, 2026
🕰️: 5:30 - 9:00 pm
🎟️: $10:00 - RSVP Required - Snacks will be provided
📍: OBA Conference Centre - 20 Toronto Street, Toronto, ON, M5C 2B8

Link to RSVP: https://ow.ly/LABO50XQ8Or

12/12/2025

In Nguyen v Pham, 2025 ONCA 858, a decision released last week, the Court of Appeal refused to extend the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal where the deadline was missed by only one day. A bit harsh?! See our article here: https://nurilaw.ca/court-of-appeal-denies-motion-for-leave-to-extend-time-for-appeal/ hashtag

09/10/2025

Happy to report a successful trial outcome for a client in a faulty pool construction case in Goderich, Ontario. Cases like this are really about principle rather than money. Few things are more aggravating than paying hard-earned money for poor construction. It is a wound that renews with every glance at the flaw. Glad this chapter can now be closed. Link to decision as soon as available on CanLii.

05/31/2025

Feeling energized after last night's incredible Lawsuits event. The beautiful venue and amazing food were wonderful, but the highlight was connecting with such excellent and insightful people. Thank you to Stanchieri Family Law for putting together a fantastic gathering and for a wonderful cause. Law Suits

05/27/2025

Check out our recent article on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Dhaliwal v Nijher. The ONCA upheld Justice LeMay's decision in which he rejected a Wife's claims for damages under the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress: https://nurilaw.ca/navigating-short-marriages-key-lessons-from-dhaliwal-v.-nijher,-2025-onca-325/

When a relationship dissolves swiftly, questions surrounding property division, spousal support, and even claims of emotional distress can become contentious. A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”), Dhaliwal v. Nijher, 2025 ONCA 325, offers crucial insights into how Canadian c...

01/20/2025

Ontario Court of Appeal reinstates an arbitrator's decision but recalculates lump sum spousal support where payor has high income. See our summary of Rathee v Rathee here: https://nurilaw.ca/rathee-v-rathee/

In Rathee v. Rathee, 2024 ONCA 912, a case released in December 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) set aside a Superior Court Judge's appeal decision in its entirety. By reinstating the arbitrator’s decision (excluding spousal support), the ONCA provided valuable guidance on lump-sum s...

01/15/2025

A parent accused of child abduction under the Hague Convention must provide clear and convincing evidence if their defence is that the non-relocating parent consented or acquiesced to the move. The Ontario Court of Appeal affirms this principle in the recent case of Thomas v Thomas. See our summary here: http://bit.ly/40hg8RN

In August of 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) released an interesting decision in Thomas v Thomas 2024 ONCA 646, a decision that deals with the Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”). 

01/06/2025

The SCJ released an interesting decision on New Years Eve regarding obtaining leave to bring motions in family cases (Kim v. McIntosh, 2024 ONSC 7257 - see here https://bit.ly/423u44v ). Obtaining leave is necessary in some GTA regions but is often granted at conferences. Here, leave was sought after a Final Order, so there was no Conference at which to address the issue. Thus, the applicant brought a separate motion to obtain leave. At the motion, Justice Bale articulated a test:
1. The Court has a gatekeeping function.
2. Leave should be granted where it is in the interests of justice.
3. A Judge should consider the context and merits of the motion and the overall balance of interests, meaning:
a. past conduct of the applicant;
b. preliminary/threshold merits of the relief sought after leave;
c. balance the individual's interests with public interests.

This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.