That's a good example, Mr. Carrie.
You're talking about violence and threats, among other things, and we'll come back to that. However, in those situations, I think that victims would have no trouble convincing a court that they have a reasonable apprehension of fear. In your example, it's very clear. If they have no such apprehension, then I'm a bit concerned.
Proposed paragraph 279.04(1)(b) states that a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that involves the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, or the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority. It's fairly comprehensive. However, you're adding “or any other similar act”. When I read that, it brings me to my previous question: What similar acts could be used to convict someone?
I'll go back to my example. If someone participating in prostitution hires a driver, someone to make their appointments or anyone else, and the person hired tells the sex worker that they have to work because that individual asked them to work that evening and they have something else planned, would that constitute a “similar act”? I don't know.
I think those few words cast a wide net. I like how succinct your bill is; however, it's very broad and that's a bit concerning.