Thank you, Ms. Way.
Once again, I'd like to come back to something and ask which passage it is. In the current version of the Criminal Code's subsection 279.04(1), one must prove the abuser engaged in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety would be threatened.
In your opinion, is this what transfers the burden of proof to the abuser? We agree that it lightens the Crown's burden of proof, since the Crown prosecutor does not have to prove the victim could reasonably expect that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to comply. The Crown prosecutor avoids this burden of proof, but how does it increase the burden of proof for the accused?