Here's where showing that "emotional distress" is mentioned in the actual wording of the Criminal Code or that it could be reasonably interpreted to mean that (it isn't and it can't) would really bolster your position.
Sorry, man. I would rather chew broken glass than pore over a bunch of "article IV, subsection II: In accordance with article III, the aforementioned parties as defined in paragraph C of article III.." just to argue with someone on the internet.
Now, if you guys really want to get critical about a Canadian law issue, how about the case of Michel Thibodeau, who sued Air Canada for over $500,000 because, amongst other things, he received Sprite instead of 7-Up because the flight attendant didn't speak French. Did I mention that Mr. Thibodeau is fully fluent in English? Thankfully, he didn't win $500,000, but he did win $12,000, unbelievably. http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=5098776
Canada is hardly unique when it comes to retarded litigation. The issue of French reminds me of the issue with Quebec though, which is pretty much Canada's own fault for letting them bend the rest of you over for everything. If they keep threatening to leave, you honestly should either let them, or send the troops in to stop them.
