What you're pointing to is potentially prohibited conduct that will have to be looked at through the reasonableness lens, which is objective but specific to the circumstances of the particular incident you've described. The anxiety of the person will have to be taken into account when determining whether or not that conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the person to believe their safety is threatened. However, in addition to that, you have to prove intent to cause the person to believe their safety is threatened or prove recklessness as to whether or not the conduct will cause that result. There are multiple layers of different items that need to be proven, including a pattern of conduct. It can be just once that you suggested something your partner, who suffers from anxiety, do or not do.
As I said before, we're dealing with ongoing conduct. No one incident in and of itself can ground a conviction for this offence, and everything has to be placed and considered in the context of the relationship as a whole. I believe that's the provision Mr. Garrison referred to earlier on, proposed subsection 264.01(3), which provides another layer of protection to ensure that cases where there are two equal partners helping each other with problems are not caught by this offence.