Man Claims Flies in Water Bottle Wrecked His Sex Life

It's not as if he even drank the fly. All he did was allegedly see it.

Remarkably, this case has made it to the Canadian Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada is mulling over the case of a man suing a company for psychological damages he says he suffered after finding dead flies in his water bottle.

The court is examining whether Culligan, the company that supplies big blue water bottles used in home dispensers, had a duty of care to Waddah Mustapha and his family, and whether the psychiatric harm Mustapha suffered was foreseeable.

A decision is expected in six months.

Mustapha, speaking outside the Ottawa courtroom Tuesday, said he vomited when he and his wife spotted a whole fly and part of another fly in their unopened water bottle in November 2001. The couple was cleaning the water bottle's neck at their Windsor, Ont., home when they saw the insects.

"We all know flies of that kind, with the blue butts. They land on feces and dead rats on the side of the road and end up in the water," Mustapha said. "This is not about me, this is about a public health issue."

Mustapha has maintained that the discovery triggered depression, phobia and anxiety that affected his work and even his sex life.

He said he had trouble drinking coffee because it contained water and became anxious about getting in the shower. He said he couldn't get rid of the revolting image of dirty flies in his supposedly pure water.

In 2005, the Ontario Superior Court awarded him $341,775 plus interest in the case. The ruling was overturned the following year in a unanimous decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Appeal Court said that Culligan could not have foreseen the events that transpired, plus it noted that neither Mustapha nor his family drank water from the bottle.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, a Culligan lawyer reiterated that argument, saying Mustapha never actually drank the fly-tainted water.

"I would describe this as a 'what might have been' type of claim," lawyer Hillel David said. "It would simply open the door to an enormous number of claims, both real and unreal. And by unreal, I mean dishonest."