I don’t know; does the law recognize a legal difference between coherent and incoherent light? And if so, at what level of coherence is the legal distinction made? Sounds like Canadian law treats all lights the same, with respect to attachment to firearms: you can’t do it. (Based on this article, anyway.) Because, the last thing The Law would want, is for someone to be able to do is be sure of his target, and what is behind it, at night.
They may have been upset by a ‘red-dot’ sight, if a scope makes them wee their pants.