Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault:
The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Last Updated: August 23 2026
Question: Can a paralegal help me understand the difference between tortious assault and tortious battery in Ontario?
Answer: Mole Legal Services can help you tell tortious assault from tortious battery in Ontario: tortious assault is the intentional creation of apprehension or reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact, even if no physical contact ever happens, while tortious battery requires actual violence or undesired physical contact. If you are assessing a claim, documenting what was said or done, and estimating possible damages for things like medical costs, loss of income, anxiety, fear, or humiliation, contact Mole Legal Services at (647) 709-5157 for a practical paralegal and property management-informed consultation across Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
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.
Note: Please contact Mole Legal Services by phone at: (647) 709-5157 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
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
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 quantity of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a pressing requirement for effective and competent legal assistance, rather than a particular job title. In Ontario, certified paralegals operate under the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation scenarios. Essential elements of this role include advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise. Mole Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at attaining efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
