Thank you for the clarification.
I'll just be frank and honest. That is actually a concern for us as well.
The standard of proof for offences like criminal harassment or threatening is very specific and has a very confined context. I know that for my officers and for our Crown attorneys who will have to prosecute it, the standard of proof will need to be extremely clear and articulable for terms like “controlling” or “significant impact”, especially when the defence is reasonableness.
We do have a question mark. I would have to say this is an element that we hope gets defined more clearly in the form of a standard of proof that the prosecution or the Crown attorneys can run with, and therefore we can derive articulation to our officers.
We need to define.... Are they going to be prohibited from attending a social event in a declined state, or is it actually controlling their finances?