In this case, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what the accused person has done as opposed to what the victim perceived, or would have reasonably perceived. In this case, the Crown would have to prove the causation to provide or to offer labour or a service, so they have to contribute to the person doing that; that's legal causation. Then there has to be some sort of threatened force or coercion, or the use of deception or fraud, or the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any similar act.
That's what we're talking about—that exploitative element that you and I discussed at the beginning of our statement about the burden. Your intention is that the burden would be on the Crown to prove it, rather than on the accused to disprove it. Does that make sense?