Ontario Superior Court: Hagopian v Kechichian IPV Tort Claims Allowed in Family Law ($3.1M)

• The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed a $3.1 million tort claim for intimate partner violence, assault, and battery to be added to a long-running family law case in *Hagopian v. Kechichian*.
• This decision follows the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of a standalone IPV tort in *Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia* and applies its principles regarding evidentiary standards.
• The court confirmed there is no limitation period for physical assaults in intimate relationships under s. 16(1)(h.2) of Ontario's Limitations Act.
• Claims for abuse of process and $2 million in income loss were denied due to non-compensable prejudice and unexplained delay in seeking their inclusion.
• The court withdrew 305 deemed admissions against the self-represented applicant, finding her mistake honest and reasonable given conflicting timelines.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently issued a significant decision in *Hagopian v. Kechichian*, 2026 ONSC 4405, allowing a $3.1 million tort claim for intimate partner violence (IPV), assault, and battery to be incorporated into an ongoing family law proceeding.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently issued a significant decision in *Hagopian v. Kechichian*, 2026 ONSC 4405, allowing a $3.1 million tort claim for intimate partner violence (IPV), assault, and battery to be incorporated into an ongoing family law proceeding. This ruling came just months before the scheduled trial, nearly two decades into the marriage and almost as long into the associated litigation between Tania Hagopian and her former spouse, Kevork Kechichian.

The court granted Tania Hagopian's request to amend her application to include these specific tort claims, marking a crucial development for the integration of personal injury actions within family law disputes. However, not all proposed amendments were successful. The court denied claims for abuse of process and a substantial $2 million in income loss, citing specific reasons for their refusal.

This decision directly applies the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in *Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia*, 2026 SCC 16, which recognized a standalone IPV tort. Following *Ahluwalia*, the Ontario Superior Court in *Hagopian* reiterated that the IPV tort requires proof of only three elements: specific conduct, a pattern of such conduct, and harm, with harm being presumed once the first two elements are met. This framework significantly streamlines the evidentiary burden for victims.

Crucially, the court rejected Kevork Kechichian's demands for extensive production and a detailed incident schedule related to the IPV claims. It emphasized that courts should avoid imposing evidentiary standards that fail to acknowledge the private and often hidden nature of coercive control, a direct application of the guidance provided in *Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia tort claims*. Furthermore, the court confirmed that under s. 16(1)(h.2) of Ontario's Limitations Act, there is no limitation period for physical assaults occurring within intimate relationships, reinforcing the ability to pursue such claims regardless of when the abuse occurred.

The court's decision hinged on Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules, which governs amendments to applications. The threshold for refusing such amendments is notably high, with the onus resting firmly on the party opposing the change to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice. While the IPV, assault, and battery claims met this standard, the claims for abuse of process and $2 million in income loss did not.

The court found that introducing these unquantified and previously unvetted economic tort claims at such a late stage, particularly with Kevork's counsel out of the country until late August 2026 and a peremptory trial date of October 5, 2026, would cause prejudice that no costs order could remedy. Applying reasoning from *Moghini v. Dashti*, 2016 ONSC 2116, the court noted that these claims had been available throughout the 9.5-year history of the case, and Tania Hagopian offered no explanation for the significant delay in seeking their inclusion. This highlights the importance of timely action, even within the flexible framework of *Rule 11(3) Family Law Rules amendments*.

Separately, the court addressed 305 deemed admissions against Tania Hagopian that arose from her failure to respond to Kevork's Request to Admit within the 20-day period stipulated by Rule 22(4). At the time, Ms. Hagopian was self-represented and completing final exams for her architecture degree. The court withdrew these admissions, finding her mistake honest and reasonable, especially given that a court-ordered Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form (TSEF) had indicated a 30-day response timeline. Applying the three-branch test from *Sharifi v. Kandhola*, 2022 ONSC 478, the court determined there was no non-compensable prejudice to Kevork, allowing Tania's June 9, 2026 response to stand for trial.

The *Hagopian v Kechichian IPV tort claims* decision provides crucial guidance for family and personal injury lawyers in Ontario. It solidifies the ability to integrate tort claims for intimate partner violence, assault, and battery directly into ongoing family law proceedings, streamlining litigation and potentially offering more comprehensive remedies for victims. The ruling underscores the high bar for refusing amendments under Rule 11(3), particularly when they involve IPV, and clarifies that the onus is on the opposing party to prove non-compensable prejudice.

This case also reinforces the specific evidentiary standards for the IPV tort as outlined in *Ahluwalia*, pushing back against demands for overly detailed incident reports that might ignore the realities of coercive control. Furthermore, the confirmation regarding the absence of a limitation period for physical assaults in intimate relationships under the *Limitations Act Ontario IPV* is a vital protection for survivors. While the court demonstrated flexibility for IPV-related amendments, it also set clear boundaries for late-stage economic claims, emphasizing the need for timely and well-justified requests.

Family and personal injury lawyers in Ontario should note that tort claims for intimate partner violence, assault, and battery can now be integrated into ongoing family law proceedings, with specific guidance on evidentiary standards and limitation periods. This decision provides a precedent for amending applications to include these torts, even late in proceedings, and clarifies the high threshold for refusing such amendments.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer