I would point out that the term “safety” is already used in the criminal harassment and human trafficking offences and has been interpreted by appellate jurisprudence to include psychological safety. In that context, it has been interpreted to cover scenarios such as the 2020 Sinclair case at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which involved a person who was trafficking a young woman. He did not use violence against her, but she was severely economically disadvantaged, she had drug-related issues and she had no place to live. Because of that, she felt that even though he didn't use violence or threaten violence, she had to do what was being asked of her or else she would lose her home and her ability to feed herself.
Those are the types of scenarios that are captured by psychological safety. I would also point out that Scotland, New South Wales and Queensland all use the term “harm” and include psychological harm. This term has been used in Canadian criminal law jurisprudence, as well as in other jurisdictions whose models we are looking to when we craft these offences.