and down a flight of stairs, pinned her against a wall, choked
her, dragged her down another flight of stairs, pushed her
out the door, grabbed her from behind and threw her against
— On many occasions between November 2013 and March
2014, when he choked her, dragged her up and down stairs,
threw her across the room, choked her and covered her
mouth with such force that it left bruises.
— In March 2014, he wrestled her to the ground outside,
removed her shoes, forced her into his car, smashed her head
against the car window, dragged her by her feet out of the car
and physically forced her through the garage and into his
 N.M. repeatedly made harmful physical contact with
Jane’s body. He bruised her, tore her clothing and made her vomit
and bleed. The absence of any medical records showing the extent
of the injuries does not mean that the battery did not happen.
I have no reason to doubt Jane’s unchallenged evidence. N.M. was
criminally charged and convicted for the March 2014 incident.
 The tort of assault is “the intentional creation of the
apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact”.5 Put
more simply, it is the threat of battery. The tort of assault exists
to protect individuals not only from actual physical harm but
from the fear of physical harm.6
 I find that N.M. assaulted Jane on several occasions. He
assaulted her in September 2013, when he threatened to kill her
if she did not leave the house immediately, approached her with
a knife and threatened to tie her up in the basement. He committed a further civil assault in March 2014, when he again threatened to kill her. On each of these occasions, he threatened her
with physical harm.
 N.M. is accordingly liable for both assault and battery
(2) Are the M.s liable for negligence?
 Jane claims that A.M. and F.M. are liable in gross negligence, or alternatively in negligence, for their son’s assault and
5 Canadian Tort Law, at pp. 46-47. Once again, this definition was adopted in
Shaw and Constantini.
6 Canadian Tort Law, at pp. 46-47.