Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can You Sue Iran for Torture in an Ontario Court?
- Court / Tribunal
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Citation
- 2026 ONSC 3155 ↗
- Date
- June 5, 2026
- Area of law
- Litigation Law
- Key issue
- Whether an Ontario court can award civil damages against a foreign state for torture and arbitrary detention under the terrorism exception to state immunity.
- Outcome
- The court held the foreign state liable and awarded compensatory, punitive, and derivative damages to the torture survivor and qualifying family members.
- Why it matters
- Survivors of state-sponsored torture and their close family members can use Canadian civil courts to obtain a damages judgment against a listed foreign government, with no limitation period barring even decades-old claims.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Canadian law normally shields foreign governments from lawsuits through state immunity, but Parliament carved out a narrow exception: when a foreign state has been officially listed as a supporter of terrorism, victims of that state's terrorist activity — including torture and arbitrary detention carried out by state agents — can sue in Canadian courts under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and the State Immunity Act. Once the listing requirement is met and the conduct qualifies as terrorist activity, immunity is lifted and the claim proceeds as an ordinary civil action, making the full range of tort remedies available. Family members who had a qualifying relationship with the primary victim at the time the wrongful acts occurred may also bring derivative claims for loss of guidance, care, and companionship under Ontario's Family Law Act, and no ordinary limitation period applies to bar these claims, though conduct predating January 1, 1985 falls outside the legislative scheme.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that any foreign government can be sued in Ontario for human rights abuses. The terrorism exception is narrow: it applies only to states that have been formally listed by the Canadian government as supporters of terrorism, and only where the conduct meets the statutory definition of terrorist activity. A lawsuit against an unlisted foreign state, or one based on conduct that does not qualify as terrorist activity, would still be barred by state immunity. Winning a judgment also does not guarantee recovery. Collecting damages from a foreign state is a separate and often difficult process that depends on identifying assets subject to enforcement and navigating distinct legal rules; the court's award does not automatically translate into payment.
Can an Ontario Court Award Damages Against a Foreign State for Torture?
Yes — Ontario courts can award damages against a foreign state for torture and arbitrary detention when that state is listed as a supporter of terrorism under Canadian law. In Haftlang et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2026 ONSC 3155 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held Iran liable and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to a survivor of state-sponsored torture and to qualifying family members.
This decision is a significant example of how Canadian civil courts can be used to hold foreign governments accountable — not just foreign individuals — for serious human rights violations.
What Is the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity in Canada?
As a general rule, foreign governments cannot be sued in Canadian courts because of a legal principle called state immunity. However, Parliament created a narrow but powerful exception through two statutes: the State Immunity Act (SIA) and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA).
Under this framework, a foreign state that has been officially listed by the Canadian government as a supporter of terrorism can be sued in Canadian courts by victims of terrorist activity. Iran was listed under the relevant federal regulation (SOR/2012-170), which opened the courthouse door for the plaintiffs in this case.
The court confirmed that detention and torture carried out by state agents can qualify as “terrorist activity” within the meaning of the legislation. Once a state is on the list and the conduct fits that definition, immunity falls away and the plaintiff can pursue an ordinary civil claim for damages.
Who Can Bring a Claim?
A claim is not limited to the person who was directly tortured or detained. Two groups can recover:
- The primary victim — the individual who suffered the detention, torture, or other qualifying harm at the hands of the foreign state’s agents.
- Qualifying family members — a spouse, child, or other relative recognized under Ontario’s Family Law Act can bring a derivative claim for loss of guidance, care, and companionship.
For a family member’s derivative claim to succeed, the qualifying relationship generally has to have existed at the time the wrongful acts occurred. A relationship formed afterward will usually not support a Family Law Act claim tied to those earlier events.
Is There a Time Limit?
No. The court confirmed that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not impose a limitation period on claims brought under the JVTA. Victims are therefore not shut out simply because the torture or detention happened many years ago.
There is, however, a practical boundary. The legislative scheme does not reach conduct that predates January 1, 1985, so harm occurring before that date can be excluded even though no ordinary limitation period applies to what comes after it.
What Kinds of Damages Are Available?
Because the claim proceeds as a civil action once immunity is lifted, the full range of tort remedies is on the table:
- Compensatory damages — for the physical and psychological harm, pain and suffering, and other losses flowing from the detention and torture.
- Punitive damages — to denounce and deter conduct the court regards as a deliberate, high-handed abuse by state agents.
- Derivative damages — awarded to qualifying family members under the Family Law Act.
Why This Decision Matters
The case shows that Canadian civil courts are a real avenue for holding foreign governments — not just individuals — accountable for serious human rights abuses, provided the state has been listed as a supporter of terrorism. For survivors of state-sponsored torture and their families, it confirms that a damages award is possible in Ontario, that there is no limitation period barring historic claims, and that close family members may share in the recovery.
Securing judgment is one step; collecting on it against a foreign state is a separate and often difficult challenge that depends on locating assets and navigating enforcement rules. Anyone considering a claim of this kind should obtain advice specific to their circumstances.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) is a Canadian federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue listed foreign states in Canadian courts. It works together with the State Immunity Act to remove the usual legal shield that protects foreign governments from lawsuits.
No — the Limitations Act, 2002 does not impose a limitation period on JVTA claims. This means victims are not barred from bringing a claim simply because the acts occurred many years ago, though courts may still exclude conduct that predates January 1, 1985.
Yes, qualifying family members such as a spouse or child can bring derivative claims under the Family Law Act for loss of guidance, care, and companionship. However, eligibility depends on the relationship existing at the time the tortious acts occurred.