Does Assault Require Actual Contact?
Tortious Assault Involves a Fear of Violence or Fear of Other Undesired Physical Contact. Where Actual Violence or Undesired Physical Contact Occurs, Such Is Known As Battery Rather Than Assault.
Understanding the Tort of Assault Including the Elements That Distinguish 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.
Tortious assault was well explained within the case of Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746, where it was said:
 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.
 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),  2 OR 705, at paras 10-12 (SC), aff’d 1967 CanLII 653 (ON CA),  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.
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.
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.