I will do better. I will link you the full text of the billl. It's quite short.
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent
I find the quote unnecessary due to the bill's length, but I'm going to quote it anyway, as I get the sense that you are the kind of person that will 'claim victory' if I don't provide you the information in the particular way that you like.
I have bolded the parts I find particularly relevant. If you actually read the damn thing, it's ambiguous. By a strict reading of the bill, if you in any way infringe upon the opportunities of a trans person to have the life they wish, then you are in violation of that bill if the court can prove that you were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the fact that they're trans.
The fact that it's ambiguous matters, because transgender activists try to frame things like refusing to use a trans person's pronouns as hateful abuse. Hell, just look at @
Endus. In this very thread he has argued that refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is abuse. Nathan Rambukkhana argued that discussing Jordan Peterson's ideas in a class made the class unsafe for trans students. It's not cut and dry. It's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't abuse and what is and isn't hateful.
So hypothetically. If you refused to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, they could take you to court on the grounds that they felt abused, unsafe and unfairly targeted due to their gender identity. They might not win, but hell, they might. In my experience, it's usually the one that can afford the most expensive lawyers that wins in that case. Better hope the trans person you offended isn't rich, or you're fucked.
Note that you won't go to jail if you're found in violation of Bill C-16. Unless you don't pay the fine, then you will go to jail.