Last Updated: , 69 days ago.
In Ontario, how is the tort of assault different from the tort of battery?
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: For immediate help, please contact White Owl Legal by phone at: (289) 839-3075 to retain services or 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, 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
Tortious assault involves conduct that inflicts a reasonable fear of imminent harm within another person. If physical conduct actually does materialize, then the tortious assault has escalated into tortious battery.
NOTE: A significant number of online searches for “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” typically indicate a desire for prompt and competent legal assistance rather than just a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are essential to that function. White Owl Legal provides legal representation within its licensed mandate/scope, emphasising strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable resolutions for clients.
