Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Legal Resources

(Ontario)

Most Popular
Contracts / Torts / Evidence / Limitations / Tenant Plus / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer / E-Access
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL COURT / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW

home / about / Little Friends Lefkada (Greece) / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Associated Site
Canadian Animal Law

Gambling

. Dunbar et al v. Ontario Gaming West GTA Limited Partnership

In Dunbar et al v. Ontario Gaming West GTA Limited Partnership (Div Ct, 2022) the Divisional Court sets out some basics of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 regime:
[27] In order to make that determination, the legislative framework must be examined. The Court of Appeal has clearly set out that framework in Moreira v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2013 ONCA 121, Commencing at para. 21:
[21] In Ontario, the authority to regulate lottery schemes is vested in the AGCO, a quasi-judicial regulatory agency established under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 26, Sched.

[22] The AGCO regulates lottery schemes through the administration of the Gaming Control Act. The Gaming Control Act, and O. Reg. 385/99, enacted under the Gaming Control Act, set out the statutory framework for regulating the conduct and management of lottery schemes.

[23] Under s. 3 of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, the AGCO is required to exercise its powers and duties under the Gaming Control Act “in the public interest and in accordance with the principles of honesty and integrity, and social responsibility.”

[24] In contrast to the regulatory power exercised by the AGCO, the authority to conduct and manage lottery schemes on behalf of the province is vested in the OLGC, a Crown agency established under the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. L. Section 0.1 of that Act indicates that the purposes of the Act are: a) to enhance the economic development of the province; b) to generate revenues for the province; c) to promote responsible gaming; and d) to ensure that anything done for one of the other three purposes is also done for the public good and in the best interests of the province.

[25] Importantly, s. 3.7 of the Gaming Control Act authorizes the AGCO to “approve in writing rules of play for the playing of lottery schemes conducted and managed by the [OLGC] if the regulations have not prescribed rules of play.”

[26] Section 22(2) of the Gaming Control Act requires that casino operators ensure that lottery schemes are played in accordance with the rules of play approved by the AGCO:
22. (2) No registered supplier who provides services related to the operation of the gaming site maintained for playing a lottery scheme conducted and managed by the [OLGC] … shall permit the playing of a lottery scheme on the site except in accordance with,

...

(b) the rules of play approved in writing by the [AGCO] for lottery schemes, if none have been prescribed by the regulations.
[28] At para. 68, the Court of Appeal went on to state:
[67] Considered in context, in my opinion, the requirement to provide a complete description of the “rules of the game” is a requirement to describe the rules by which the game is played and which ensure the integrity and fairness of the game assuming it proceeds in the ordinary course.
[29] At para. 71, the Court stated:
[71] Towards those ends, the legislature requires that casino operators submit to the AGCO for its approval a complete description of each game of chance they intend to offer, including the “rules of the game”, and that casino operators and staff ensure that each game of chance is played in accordance with the approved rules of play. This allows the legislature to strictly control gambling operations that may otherwise exploit individual gamblers or harm the broader public interest.

[72] In order to achieve this objective, the legislature requires the regulator to review rules such as (i) the objectives of the game, (ii) the wagers that may be made, (iii) the chances of winning, and (iv) the advantages of the operator in relation to each wager. All of these rules are integral to the fairness and integrity of games of chance and failure to regulate these items would undermine the remedial function of the legislation.
[30] Section 22(1) of the Act now reads differently, but the same intention remains:
Rules of play

22 (1) No registered supplier who provides a gaming site, other than a gaming site maintained for playing a lottery scheme conducted and managed by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation or by the lottery subsidiary, and no registered gaming assistant who provides services to the registered supplier shall permit the playing of a lottery scheme on the site except in accordance with the rules of play and other standards and requirements that are prescribed by the regulations or established by the Registrar under section 3.8. 2011, c. 9, Sched. 17, s. 11; 2020, c. 36, Sched. 18, s. 10 (1). [bold emphasis added]
. Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

In Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal commented briefly on the OLG:
[8] OLG is a Crown corporation that conducts and manages lottery schemes in Ontario on behalf of the provincial government. It operates under an exemption to the prohibition against gaming and betting in Canada under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. OLG’s profits are paid to Ontario and are the province’s largest source of non-tax revenue.


CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.