Category Archives: Torts

Family Violence Torts and Their Limits in Alberta

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Colenutt v Colenutt, 2023 ABKB 562 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Family Violence Torts and Their Limits in Alberta

In September 2023, Deanne Sowter and I wrote an ABlawg post on the tort of family violence, which was initially recognized as a new tort by the Ontario Superior Court and then rejected by the Court of Appeal, along with the alternative tort of coercive control (see Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (CanLII) (Ahluwalia ONSC); 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII) (Ahluwalia ONCA)). An Alberta court has now followed the Ontario Court of Appeal in holding that the torts of family violence and coercive control should not be accepted in this province. This post considers Justice Debra Yungwirth’s reasons in Colenutt v Colenutt, 2023 ABKB 562 (CanLII), including limitations issues that arose in the case and the need for legislative reform. Continue reading →

Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

By: Jennifer Koshan and Deanne Sowter

Case Commented On: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (Can LII); 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

Intimate partner violence (IPV) takes many forms, all of which cause harm to survivors (who are disproportionately women and children). In August, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declared that gender-based violence is an epidemic. However, only certain forms of IPV were subject to legal sanction historically – primarily physical and sexual abuse, although sexual assault against a spouse was only criminalized in 1983 (see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 278). More recently, beginning in the 1970s and 80s, emotional and financial abuse and coercive control have been recognized as insidious forms of IPV. Coercive control focuses on patterns rather than discrete incidents of abuse, and on the impact on the survivor’s autonomy rather than physical injuries (see Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)). Although coercive control is not currently criminalized in Canada (unlike some other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales), broad definitions of IPV that include coercive control and emotional and financial abuse are now included in many Canadian laws. There are laws declaring IPV to be relevant to parenting decisions (including relocation), protection orders, early termination of leases, employment leave, and other legal remedies (for a comparison of these laws across Canada, see here). Gaps in the law’s recognition of IPV remain, however. For example, in Alberta, definitions of family violence in the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, and Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27, do not yet include emotional and financial abuse or coercive control (for discussion see e.g. here). Moreover, as we discuss in this post, tort law has inconsistently provided avenues of economic redress for the harms caused by IPV. Continue reading →

Mind the Gap: A New Tort of Harassment in Alberta

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Mind the Gap: A New Tort of Harassment in Alberta

The law of torts is as old as the mythical reasonable man, but courts continue to create new torts that respond to changing social circumstances and formally recognize novel legal wrongs. In recent years, courts in Canada have accepted new torts such as intrusion upon seclusion (Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (Can LII)), public disclosure of private facts (ES v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739 (Can LII)), family violence (Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (CanLII)), and harassment (Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209 (CanLII)). In the first three cases, courts focused on gaps in existing legal doctrine and remedies as the basis for creating the new torts. In the fourth case, Johnston, Justice Colin Feasby decided that a tort of harassment was worthy of recognition, in part to explain the use of an existing remedy – common law restraining orders. His analysis is the subject of this post; a subsequent post will discuss Ahluwalia’s creation of the tort of family violence, which was recently overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal (see 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)). Continue reading →

Rigs in a Parlour: The Freedom Convoy and the Law of Private Nuisance

By: David V Wright and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Rig in a Parlour: The Freedom Convoy and the Law of Private Nuisance

Matter Commented On: Li v Barber et al, Court File No CV-22-00088514-00CP

After more than a week of disruptive, and at times highly offensive, protesting in the nation’s capital, private law has been engaged. Specifically, residents of the inner downtown area applied to the Ontario Superior Court for injunctive relief (essentially, a temporary ban on certain conduct) and for damages under the tort of private nuisance. This post discusses the basic elements and principles of private nuisance as they relate to the present context (we do not comment on procedural aspects – e.g., certification of the proceeding as a class action). Our preliminary assessment is that the prospects for success on the question of private nuisance are very good. Early indications from the Court are consistent with this assessment, as Justice Hugh McLean of the Ontario Superior Court granted an interim injunction on Monday (copy of the Court order here). In doing so, Justice McLean indicated that the right of citizens to peace and quiet was the overriding right (see this detailed thread on Twitter summarizing the Court proceedings). Continue reading →

Indigenous Rights and Private Party Liability

By: Kent McNeil

PDF Version: Indigenous Rights and Private Party Liability

Matter Commented On: Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2022 BCSC 15 (CanLII)

To what extent can private parties be held liable in tort law, specifically nuisance, for damage done to Indigenous rights? This was the issue in Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2022 BCSC 15 (CanLII) [Thomas]. In 1952, the Aluminum Company of Canada (now Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., or RTA) completed construction of a dam on the Nechako River in west-central British Columbia to generate electricity for its aluminum smelting operations. Construction of the dam had been authorized by agreements with and a licence from British Columbia pursuant to a provincial statute, the Industrial Development Act, SBC 1949, c 31, which had been enacted to facilitate construction of the hydroelectric dam (Thomas, paras 66-69). The company has abided by all the conditions of the agreements and the licence. Continue reading →