Yes No Share to Facebook
Tortious Assault: The Threat or Fear of Imminent Harmful Contact
Question: What is the difference between the tort of assault and the tort of battery?
Answer: The tort of assault involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, while battery requires actual physical contact. At Legacy Legal Services LLP™, we assist clients in navigating these distinctions to ensure they understand their rights and options.
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
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
In a claim for tortious assault, a Plaintiff may claim actual damages for losses such as first aid expenses, medical costs, pharmaceuticals, among other out-of-pocket expenses, as well as lost income if time away from work occurred. Additionally, a Plaintiff may claim general damages for pain, suffering, humiliation, anxiety including lingering fear, lifestyle impairment, among other issues. In some circumstances, punitive damages may also be awarded. As was also explained in Barker above, an award of damages, including punitive damages, for the tort of assault may arise even where the victim of an assault suffers little, if any, injury whereas the civil law courts generally view that a damages award serves the societal purpose of denouncing aggressive abusive behaviour that may lead to violence.
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.
