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
The tort of assault was explained well in the case of Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746, wherein it was stated:
[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, and unlike the tort of battery, as explained in Barker, the tort of assault arises without physical contact being made and requires only that a reasonable fear and apprehension of harmful physical contact exists; and accordingly, assault arises upon the fear of infliction of injury rather than an actual infliction of injury.
Claimable Damages
In a claim for tortious assault, a Plaintiff may claim actual damages for losses such as first aid expenses, medical costs, pharmaceuticals, among other out-of-pocket expenses, as well as lost income if time away from work occurred. Additionally, a Plaintiff may claim general damages for pain, suffering, humiliation, anxiety including lingering fear, lifestyle impairment, among other issues. In some circumstances, punitive damages may also be awarded. As was also explained in Barker above, an award of damages, including punitive damages, for the tort of assault may arise even where the victim of an assault suffers little, if any, injury whereas the civil law courts generally view that a damages award serves the societal purpose of denouncing aggressive abusive behaviour that may lead to violence.
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 significant volume of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular label. In Ontario, paralegals who are licensed are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation areas. Core to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, preparation of evidence, and compelling advocacy directed at securing timely and beneficial outcomes for clients.
