Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault:
The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Last Updated: June 12 2026
Question: What’s the difference between the tort of assault and the tort of battery in Ontario?
Answer: In Ontario civil law, assault is intentionally causing a person to reasonably fear imminent harmful or offensive contact, while battery requires actual intentional physical contact that’s harmful or offensive; the distinction is summarized in Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746. If you’re dealing with threats, unwanted contact, or related damages across Ontario, Pollock Paralegal provides practical Paralegal support to assess your options, document evidence, and pursue or defend a claim, so call (519) 694-0363 to get started.
Distinguishing the Tort of Assault from the Tort of Battery
Tortious assault is commonly confused with tortious battery. The confusion appears to arise from similar misperception for assault in the criminal law context. Tortious assault, like criminal assault, requires only a threat or fear of imminent harm by violence or undesired physical contact. It is tortious battery that involves actual violence or undesired 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, 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 quantity of searches incorporating “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgency for competent and immediate legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specified litigation matters. Essential to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Pollock Paralegal provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and positive outcomes for clients.