Supreme Court questions Ontario's plan for international online gambling

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging Ontario's plan to let its online gamblers play against users in other countries. The Atlantic Lottery Corporation is leading the legal fight on behalf of other provincial governments and lottery operators. They argue the proposed "pooled liquidity" model could infringe on other provincial markets and exceeds the legal powers granted to provinces. The case centres on whether Ontario can legally operate such an international system through its iGaming Ontario platform, which launched in 2022 for regulated online casino games and sports betting.

Ontario's attorney, Ananthan Sinnadurai, told the court the province would retain full control over the system and the experience of local players. "We choose who we partner with. We still run the system in this province, and fundamentally we control the experience of people in Ontario, because that's the concern," Sinnadurai said. He argued the model is legal because the provincial agency continues to oversee the gambling system and select participating companies. The plan would open games like poker and fantasy sports to players outside Ontario, removing current geographic restrictions.

The legal dispute hinges on the interpretation of the federal Criminal Code, which allows provinces to conduct and manage lottery schemes within their jurisdictions. Ontario's Court of Appeal upheld the international model last November, finding no express prohibition in the law. Matthew Milne-Smith, a lawyer for the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, told the Supreme Court that reasoning was flawed. "The decision relied on a lack of express prohibition of international play in section 207(1)(a), and with respect, this is backwards," he said, contending gambling is illegal unless specifically authorized. Several Supreme Court justices pressed Ontario on how it would enforce its rules against participants located abroad. Their questions echoed the dissenting opinion from the lower court, where Justice Katherine van Rensburg argued the model would be unlawful because Ontario would not be conducting and managing all parts of the gambling operation.