Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault:
The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Last Updated: August 26 2026
Question: What’s the difference between tort assault and tort battery in Ontario?
Answer: Wennekers.Legal™ can help you understand the difference between the tort of assault and battery: in general, assault is the intentional creation of apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact, meaning the plaintiff must reasonably fear immediate harm even if no contact occurs, while battery requires actual physical contact, so the claim may escalate to battery once contact happens. If you are dealing with an incident and want help assessing potential liability and damages, contact Wennekers.Legal™ for professional legal services in Ontario at (647) 701-1162.
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 Wennekers.Legal™ by phone at: (647) 701-1162 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.
Interestingly, in some circumstances, certain family members of an assault victim may also bring claims when adverse affects, such as lifestyle changes, even if temporary, occur as an indirect consequence of the harm 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 substantial amount of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a demand for swift and effective legal assistance as opposed to a particular professional designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, granting them the authority to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Central to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Wennekers.Legal™ provides legal support within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
