Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault:
The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: In Ontario, how is the tort of assault different from the tort of battery?
Answer: White Owl Legal can help you understand the Ontario civil torts of assault versus battery as a paralegal. Tortious assault is the intentional creation of apprehension or reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact, even if the contact never happens, while tortious battery requires actual physical contact. If you suffered fear of imminent violence, that may support an assault claim; if physical contact occurred, battery may be in issue too, and the facts will drive the available damages. Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746, and McLean v. McLean, 2019 SKCA 15, explain the civil definition and that assault can be actionable without completed contact. To discuss your situation and next steps in Ontario, call (289) 839-3075.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Distinguishing the Tort of Assault from the Tort of Battery
The tort of assault is often misunderstood with the tort of battery. Perhaps the confusion arises from similar misperceptions about assault within the criminal law. With the tort of assault, only a threat or fear of imminent harm by physical contact is required; however, it is the tort of battery that involves some actual physical contact.
Note: Please contact White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Tortious assault was well explained within the case of Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746, where it was said:
[1194] Turning to the tort of assault, the courts across Canada have embraced a common definition, as expounded upon by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in McLean v McLean, 2019 SKCA 15, at paras 59-60:
Allen Linden and Bruce Feldthusen, in Canadian Tort Law, 10th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2015) at 49, provide a definition of civil assault:
§2.42 Assault is the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The tort of assault furnishes protection for the interest in freedom from fear of being physically interfered with. Damages are recoverable by someone who is made apprehensive of immediate physical contact, even though that contact never actually occurs.
[1195] To establish a claim for assault, the evidence must demonstrate that a Plaintiff had reasonable grounds to believe that they were in danger of violence from the tortfeasor: Bruce v Dyer, 1966 CanLII 191 (ON SC), [1966] 2 OR 705, at paras 10-12 (SC), aff’d 1967 CanLII 653 (ON CA), [1970] 1 OR 482 (CA). As with battery, assault is a trespass to the person and is actionable without proof of quantifiable damages: see McLean, at para 63. In fact, even without a completed battery, if assault is established on the evidence it can potentially ground punitive damages as a means of signaling the need for public “condemnation and outrage”: Herman v Graves, 1998 ABQB 471, at para 52.
Interestingly, as per the Barker case among many others, contrary to commonly held beliefs, the tort of assault occurs without a requirement of physical contact whereas tortious assault only requires that the victim, being the Plaintiff in the litigation, experienced a reasonable fear and apprehension of harmful physical contact. Simply said, a tortious assault occurs upon a fear of injury rather than upon an actual injury.
Claimable Damages
When raising a tort of assault claim, the Plaintiff may claim actual damages for expenses incurred for first aid, medical services, pharmaceutical costs, among other out-of-pocket expenses, if any, as well as claiming loss of income for time away from work, if any. Additionally, a Plaintiff may claim general damages for experiencing the emotions of anxiety, fear, humiliation, insult, lifestyle changes, among other issues. In some circumstances, claiming punitive damages may also be warranted. As explained within the Barker case, damage awards, including awards for punitive damages, may arise even if the victim suffered little, if any, whereas, generally, civil law courts view damages awards as serving the purpose of denouncing aggressive behaviour that may actually lead to violent conduct.
Furthermore, in some cases certain family members may bring claims when adverse affects arise, even if only temporary affects such as lifestyle changes or inconvenience, as an indirect consequence of the harm that is suffered directly by the assault victim.
Conclusion
Assault involves conduct that raises a fear of imminent harm by physical conduct within another person. If actual physical conduct occurs, then the assault escalates into battery.
NOTE: A considerable quantity of online searches like “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a search for prompt and proficient legal assistance rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals fall under the regulation of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are empowered to represent clients in specific litigation circumstances. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital to this function. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed jurisdiction, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy geared towards achieving efficient and positive outcomes for clients.
