In December 2024, the Canadian Family Law Quarterly published Samantha’s article, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?”[1], canvassing and assessing reported decisions between January 2007 and January 2024, from courts across the country addressing claims in tort for damages for spousal violence (intimate partner violence (“IPV”), gender-based violence, domestic violence and family violence between spouses). Since that time, there have been a number of new and very important reported decisions from lower courts where survivors have successfully advanced claims in tort for damages for spousal violence. These decisions are changing the landscape in terms of how courts are addressing claims for spousal violence and the quantum of damages awarded.
Between January 2024 and October 2025, 21 decisions have been reported on Westlaw and CanLII addressing claims for damages in tort for spousal violence.[2] This is an approximately 185% increase in reported decisions per year from the decisions reported across the country over the previous five (5) years.[3] It is noteworthy that these decisions reflect changing trends: in family court decisions where damages were awarded, there is an increase in the average quantum of damages awarded of 106% ($43,512.57 to $89,567) and the decisions themselves include judicial commentary demonstrating the courts’ growing awareness of the prevalence of spousal violence and the resulting harms - including reported decisions highlighting the epidemic of intimate partner violence, the blameworthiness of the conduct of perpetrator, and the importance of awarding damages to both recognize the harm caused to survivors and to condemn spousal violence. This contrasts with a number of prior cases where courts often minimized the serious and long-lasting harms of spousal violence.[4]
Increase in damage awards
As highlighted in “Damages for Spousal Violence – Why are They So Low”, prior to January 2024, in 90% of reported decisions from a family court assessing a claim for damages in tort for spousal violence, the court awarded damages of less than $100,000 and in 70% of cases, the court awarded damages of less than $50,000. In reported decisions from a family court, damages ranged from $500 to $300,000, with an average award of $43,512.57.[5] Since January 2024, there has been a demonstrated increase in the quantum of damages awarded to survivors, with the family court regularly awarding general and aggravated damages over $50,000, and in many cases, over $100,000.[6] The average damage award in family court has more than doubled from $43,512.57 between January 2007 and January 2024[7] to $89,567 between January 2024 and October 2025.
Notably, in four (4) post-January 2024 decisions the court awarded more than $150,000 in total damages to survivors, well-beyond the damage award of $100,000 in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476.[8] These awards were ordered where the abuse was inflicted over a prolonged period of time.
1. In Barreto v. Salema, 2024 ONSC 4972, the husband choked and slammed the wife’s head against the wall on several occasions during their 17-year relationship. Justice Vella considered the increase in damages in civil sexual assault cases and noted that “a comparable evolution is appropriate for IPV-related tort cases as well.” She ordered the husband to pay the wife damages totaling $160,000 (general and aggravated damages of $150,000; punitive damages of $10,000).[9]
2. In Zunnurain v. Chowdhury, 2024 ONSC 5552, the husband physically and sexually assaulted the wife during the course of their relationship of 25 years and regularly engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour. Justice Ranjan K. Agarwal ordered the husband to pay the wife damages totaling $200,000 (general and aggravated damages of $175,000; punitive damages of $25,000). He explicitly acknowledged that his award of general and aggravated damages was higher than that in Ahluwalia, although he was “loathed to find that the facts here are “worse” than in the analogous cases” or that “a specific incident of assault or battery is “worth” some amount.”[10]
3. In J.K.P. v L.S.B, 2025 BCSC 1494, the husband frequently perpetrated family violence against the wife during their relationship of 26 years. Justice Milman found a “pressing need to denounce and deter” the husband’s conduct beyond compensatory damages. He held that the wife’s pain and suffering was even more extensive than that in Barreto v. Salema, and the husband’s criminal convictions only covered “a small fraction of the tortious conduct that has been proven in the trial”, for which the husband had yet to be punished for. He awarded the wife damages totaling $202,849 (general and aggravated damages of $185,000; punitive damages of $17,849.16).[11]
4. In C.S.K. v. P.K, 2025 BCSC 1728, the husband physically assaulted the wife on 4 separate occasions during their marriage of 20 years, with the last assault leaving the wife permanently disabled from any kind of employment. Justice Layton found the husband’s conduct was “high-handed, malicious, oppressive, and highly reprehensible” and reapportioned the ownership interests in the matrimonial home 75% to the wife and 25% to the husband to compensate the wife for economic loss and other financial unfairness, in addition to ordering the husband to pay the wife damages totaling $190,559.19 (non-pecuniary and aggravated damages of $175,000; punitive damages of $15,000 and special damages of $559.19, being the cost for the wife’s treatments for her pain).[12]
Judicial commentary
Since January 2024, the courts are increasingly willing to publicly condemn abusive conduct, with judicial commentary focusing on the blameworthiness of the abuser. Justice Vella in Barreto v. Salema denounced the “reprehensible nature” of the husband’s misconduct, his “pattern of psychological manipulation over a lengthy time” and lack of remorse. She also recognized the “humiliating” and “egregious” manner in which the abuse was perpetrated - the husband would restrain the wife, tell her he was doing this for her own good, and call the wife the abuser when she tried to push herself away.[13]
Similarly, Justice Agarwal found the case of Zunnurain v. Chowdhury to “[demand] an award that reflects our collective “abhorrence” of IPV” and described the husband’s abusive conduct as “evil”. The husband had pleaded guilty to criminal assault of the wife, but repeatedly denied having assaulted her in the family law proceeding. Justice Agarwal reprimanded the husband’s “elaborate tale” to explain away his guilty plea. This was described as another form of harm of the wife, “this time from the witness stand” and one that “once again degrades their ex-partner.”[14]
In Mikhail v. Mikhail, 2024 ONSC 4427, the husband attempted to suffocate the wife with a pillow, and punched, slapped, choked, kicked and spat on the wife. He also dragged the wife down a flight of stairs by her hair and demanded physical intimacy. Justice McVey strongly criticized the husband’s conduct, describing it as “despicable, prolonged, highly blameworthy and worthy of significant judicial rebuke” that justified an award of $100,000 in general and aggravated damages.[15]
While the damage awards in these cases do not yet equate to damages awarded to survivors of gender-based violence perpetrated by non-related parties[16], these cases show a promising trend towards an increase in damage awards and a reflection by the family courts that they recognize and condemn the harms of spousal violence. We encourage courts to continue emphasizing the evils of spousal violence and societies’ collective “abhorrence”, with the goal that someday soon, survivors of spousal violence will be adequately compensated for the harms they suffer at the hands of their current and former sp
[1] Samantha Eisen, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181
[2] 2 cases from civil court; 19 cases from family court: Agbasi v Hassan, 2024 ONSC 2101; Wang v Li, 2024 ONSC 2352; Hunt v Hunt, 2024 BCSC 1048; Pichie v Pichie, 2024 ONSC 2868; Mikhail v Mikhail, 2024 ONSC 4427; Barreto v Salema, 2024 ONSC 4972; Zunnurain v Chowdhury, 2024 ONSC 5552; MJA v VSBC, 2025 YKSC 17; Morris v Morris, 2025 ONSC 2483; Klassen v Epp, 2025 BCSC 1056; Chen v Huang, 2025 ONSC 3406; Gong v Jin, 2025 ONSC 3108; Saulnier v Postma, 2025 ONSC 3569; Jain v Jain, 2025 ONSC 4454; J.K.P. v L.S.B, 2025 BCSC 1494; Sethi v Sethi, 2025 ONSC 5079; C.S.K. v P.K, 2025 BCSC 1728; Byrne v Milner, 2025 ONSC 5272; Sethi v Kaur, 2025 ONSC 5760; Fleury v Budd, 2025 BCSC 2035; Moore v Barkley, 2025 BCSC 2153.
[3] Compared to the 22 reported decisions across the country between 2019 and 2023 (approximately 4.4 cases per year), see “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181, Schedule “A”.
[4] Samantha Eisen, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181 at 192.
[5] Samantha Eisen, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181 at 191.
[6] In 57% of cases (11 out of 19 family court cases), the court ordered equal to or over $50,000 in damages; in 37% of cases (7 out of 19 family court cases), the court ordered equal to or over $100,000 in damages.
[7] Samantha Eisen, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181 at 191.
[8] At para. 133.
[9] Barreto v. Salema, 2024 ONSC 4972, at paras. 441, 460.
[10] Zunnurain v. Chowdhury, 2024 ONSC 5552, at paras. 215, 253.
[11] J.K.P. v L.S.B., 2025 BCSC 1494, at paras. 170, 173, 177, 178, 181.
[12] C.S.K. v. P.K, 2025 BCSC 1728 at paras. 91, 145, 383, 413.
[13] Barreto v. Salema, 2024 ONSC 4972, at paras. 443, 448, 452.
[14] Zunnurain v. Chowdhury, 2024 ONSC 5552 at paras. 234, 254, 256.
[15] Mikhail v. Mikhail, 2024 ONSC 4427 at paras. 34, 37.
[16] Samantha Eisen, “Damages for Spousal Violence — Why are They So Low?” (2024) 43 CFLQ 181 at 193-195.
Note to reader: This blog post was updated on December 1, 2025 to include additional reported decisions (there were more reported decisions than previously noted) and to update statistical results as a result of the increase in noted reported decisions.