Is upset, disgust, anxiety, agitation a mental state that falls short of injury?

In considering the first question, it is well-established that the law does not recognize upset, disgust, anxiety, agitation or other mental states that fall short of injury. To be a compensable injury, it must be “serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely, if sometimes reluctantly, accept”: Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 at para. 9.

While this means that a legally compensable mental injury must be more than mere psychological upset, such a finding need not rest, in whole or in part, on the plaintiff proving a recognized psychiatric illness. Expert evidence can assist in determining whether or not a mental injury has been established, but where a psychiatric diagnosis is unavailable, it remains open to a trier of fact to find, on other evidence adduced by a plaintiff, that she has proven on a balance of probabilities the occurrence of mental injury: Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 at paras. 35-38.