A Pilot Project is being undertaken as part of this Court’s response to the new tort of intimate partner violence established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16.

The procedure for adjudicating claims for intimate partner violence is guided by the foundational purpose of Rule 70 to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every family proceeding on its merits and the principles of proportionality articulated in the King’s Bench Rules (“KBR”) 70.02.1(1) and 70.02.1(2) respectively. The following procedure applies to the tort of intimate partner violence.

Statement of Claim
A claim based on the tort of intimate partner violence (IPV) shall be set out in a statement of claim pursuant to KBR 70.03(8)(b) and filed in the Court of King’s Bench (Family Division).

Filing a Stand-alone IPV Claim
Where there are no initiating pleadings seeking statutory relief, including a petition for divorce, petition, notice of application and a notice of motion to vary, a stand-alone statement of claim for IPV may be filed.

Contested Proceeding
When the times specified by KBR 18 and 19 for filing and serving a responding pleading have expired, counsel or a self-represented party may contact the case conference coordinator to schedule a case conference for the contested proceeding. Case conference briefs shall be filed by the parties. The trial dates for the proceeding will be set by the case conference judge at the first case conference. The parties shall ensure
that there has been full disclosure of relevant documentation respecting the issues ofliability and damages with authorities related to claimed damages.

Default
In the event no responding pleadings are filed, default under KBR 19 may be noted and the matter will proceed on an uncontested basis. A requisition noting default and a motion and affidavit in support of the claim shall be filed.

IPV Claim where Initiating Pleading seeking Statutory Relief filed
Where there is an existing initiating pleading seeking statutory relief, including a petition for divorce, petition, notice of application, and a notice of motion to vary, a statement of claim based on the tort of IPV shall be given the same file number, as the existing proceeding involving the same parties.

Where the statement of claim is filed prior to the first case conference, the claim shall be automatically joined with the initiating pleading in the existing proceeding.

When a claim based on the tort of IPV has not been filed prior to the first case conference, a motion for joinder under KBR 5.01(1) may be filed and served and heard by the case conference judge.

A statement of claim based on the tort of IPV will not be subject to triage screening by the triage conference coordinator under KBR 70.24(19).

Claims for statutory relief and the tort of IPV, including liability and damages, shall beheard by the trial judge at the same time.

Prior Amendment to Initiating Pleading
Where an initiating pleading has been amended prior to the issuing of this Practice Direction to include an IPV tort claim, the triage/case conference judge will determine whether the amendments are sufficient to adjudicate the issues of liability and damages.

If the amendments are not sufficient to adjudicate these issues, the initiating party will file a statement of claim and the responding party will file responding pleadings, as directed by the triage/case conference judge.

Coming into effect
This Practice Direction comes into effect immediately.

On May 5, 2026, the Court of King’s Bench issued a Practice Direction providing for the presumptive remote appearance of accused who are in custody at a Provincial Correctional Centre at detention review hearings under sections 520 and 525 of the Criminal Code unless counsel advise at least five full business days prior to the scheduled hearing date that the accused is to appear at the hearing in person. Since becoming effective on September 8, 2026, the Court has had requests for the accused to appear in person for the purpose of having the accused sign their supporting affidavit with the required administration of oath or affirmation.

The Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench, SI/2016-34 (Canada) provide as follows:
Affidavit of applicant in custody
9.03 (4) When the applicant is in custody, the registrar may accept the applicant’s unsworn affidavit for filing if
…
(b) the applicant is to appear at the judicial interim release hearing by video link and the truth of the contents of the unsworn affidavit is to be confirmed by the accused to be true at the hearing.

Accordingly, instead of requesting the transportation of the accused, subject to a direction otherwise by the presiding judge, an available option is for the accused when they appear by video in the courtroom to then confirm the truth of the contents of their affidavit.