Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault:
The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Last Updated: August 21 2026
Question: Who can help me tell the difference between the tort of assault and the tort of battery in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario, Denali Paralegal can help you understand the difference between the tort of assault and the tort of battery in plain language. Tortious assault is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact, so the claim can arise even if no actual contact happens. Tort battery, by contrast, requires some actual physical contact. To support an assault claim, the evidence generally needs to show the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to believe they were in danger of violence, and damages can be available even without quantifiable injury, potentially including general and, in some cases, punitive damages. If you are dealing with an incident and want to assess your options, call (877) 414-4377 for family law services support from a paralegal at Denali Paralegal.
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.
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, 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
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 considerable number of inquiries containing “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicate a necessity for prompt and effective legal assistance, rather than pointing to a particular title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the identical Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation issues. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that position. Denali Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic alignment, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy directed at securing swift and advantageous outcomes for clients.