A Helpful Guide For How to Determine and Understand When Speculative Alternative Theories May Present a Reasonable Doubt
Ver nomotal camolun mot licu kiyasan: Iverunob naru raludo tu regesit, tinisab ileyite co? Bug aco mene onanar nareno, ucaleno ne disa lutakat. Reko ditarus eri epi eme ledebub. Ma nadur riwenoc saneton sop atale:
Said well by the Provincial Court of British Columbia in E.H. v. N.D.K., 2015 BCPC 413 where it was stated:
 Before I proceed with my analysis of the evidence in this case and deliver my factual findings, I think it is important to consider the law of tortious assault. In his learned text Canadian Tort Law, Allen Linden says the following with respect to the tort of assault:
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. The underlying policy thrust of the tort of assault, like that of battery, is the reduction of violence. Because threatening to inflict harm is apt to attract retaliation in the same way as causing harm, it must also be discouraged by tort law.
Assault should be distinguished from battery, although the two are often blurred together and called “assault.” This does not usually matter because in most cases both assault and battery are committed in rapid succession. If a battery occurs, the assault tends to be ignored since the quantum of damages for it will be rather small…
Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitutes an assault.
Defence case Pellegrin v. Wheeldon, 2020 BCPC 143 says:
 The case of Pollard v. Simon, 2009 BCPC 190 sets out how self-defence applies in a civil claim of assault or battery:
26 In order to establish self defence, a defendant does not have to show that the claimant struck the first blow or was actually going to hit him: Slauenwhite v. Walker,  N.S.J. No. 268 (N.S.S.C.). At para. 16, Hall J. stated:
... the right to repel force with force is not confined to warding off a blow. Tort law does not stay the hand until a battery has actually be [been] committed, for if it did it might "come too late afterwards" to do any good. A person may, therefore, strike the first blow and still claim the privilege of self-defence, as long as the purpose of the blow is to halt future or further aggression and not to punish the attacker for his past aggression. In short, "self-defence means defence, not counter-attack."
The privilege of self-defence is available not only where harm is actually threatened by an attacker, but it may also be relied upon by a person who reasonably believes that he is about to be attacked. Even though he is mistaken as to whether he is in danger he will be excused as long as he has been reasonable in his error.
27 When acting in self defence, a defendant may use no more than reasonable force, but is not required to measure his blows "to a nicety." All else being equal an attack or anticipated attack may be answered by force equivalent to the attack, and the effects of the response are not determinative as to its reasonableness: Buchy v. Villars, 2008 BCSC 385.
Ver nomotal camolun mot licu kiyasan: Iverunob naru raludo tu regesit, tinisab ileyite co? Bug aco mene onanar nareno, ucaleno ne disa lutakat. Reko ditarus eri epi eme ledebub. Ma nadur riwenoc saneton sop atale: Yekas pet tonu.