Canada Supreme Court Hears Ontario iGaming International Liquidity Case

The Supreme Court of Canada has heard arguments over whether Ontario can expand its regulated iGaming market to allow peer-to-peer games to share player liquidity with jurisdictions outside the country.

Judges heard arguments on 7 October in Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, a case centred on how provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code apply to cross-border online gambling.

No ruling was issued following the hearing, with the Supreme Court taking the case under consideration.

The outcome could determine whether Ontario players using products such as online poker can compete against players located in regulated markets internationally.

Ontario Defends International Player Pooling

Ontario players are currently restricted to competing against other players within the province on regulated peer-to-peer iGaming products.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled by a 4–1 majority in November 2025 that allowing international player pooling would be permitted under the Criminal Code.

That decision was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court by Atlantic Lottery Corporation, British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Loto-Québec and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries.

Ontario’s position is supported by the Canadian Gaming Association (CGA), Flutter Entertainment, NSUS Group and Alberta.

Joshua Hunter, counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, argued that the Criminal Code is intended to prevent provinces from interfering with gambling conducted and managed by other Canadian provinces rather than prohibiting connections with international jurisdictions.

“[The Criminal Code] makes it clear that anything outside Canada is not prohibited at all, unless Parliament expressly says it is,” Hunter said.

Adam Goldenberg, counsel for the CGA, added:

“Ontario is not precluded by anything from acting outside the borders of Canada.

“What has been presented to you is a scheme in which everything that happens in Ontario would be conducted and managed by the province.”

Provincial Lotteries Challenge Ontario Position

The provincial lottery corporations appealing the earlier ruling argued that Ontario's proposed international liquidity model would breach the Criminal Code.

Matthew Milne-Smith, counsel for the appellants, challenged the Ontario Court of Appeal’s interpretation that international play could be permitted because it is not expressly prohibited.

“The decision relied on a lack of express prohibition of international play,” Milne-Smith said. “With respect, this is backwards.

“Everything that is not expressly permitted is prohibited, and both the text and the history of the relevant provisions support this conclusion.”

The lotteries also raised concerns about the wider implications of allowing Ontario to connect its regulated games with players outside Canada.

“This court should not approve a dramatic expansion of online gaming to encompass foreign gamblers based on hand-waving about how it’s going to happen in practice,” Milne-Smith added.

Court Considers Meaning Of Conduct And Manage

A central issue in the case is the Criminal Code requirement that provincial governments “conduct and manage” gaming schemes “in that province”.

Ontario argues it would continue to conduct and manage the activity offered to players within its regulated market, even when those players compete against users overseas.

Under the proposed model, Ontario would establish agreements with participating international jurisdictions, while overseas players would remain subject to the regulations applying in their respective markets.

Hunter said: “Where we disagree [with the lotteries] is on whether, in saying ‘in that province or in the other province’, Parliament was trying to put Ontario in a box or was it trying to keep it out of the other provinces’ turf.

“We say it’s the latter.”

Ananthan Sinnadurai, also representing Ontario, said the proposed model would not give overseas jurisdictions authority over Ontario's regulated market.

“By linking them with international schemes, we’re not taking the scheme outside of this province,” Sinnadurai said.

“It’s still strictly within this province because all that’s happening is iGaming will permit pooled liquidity with others.”

Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned that interpretation during the hearing, describing part of Ontario’s argument as “word salad”.

“You’re saying, in effect, you’re controlling it through contractual means, but that doesn’t mean manage and conduct within the meaning of the act,” Rowe said. “It’s playing with words.”

Judges Question Geographic Interpretation

The opposing argument reflects the position taken by Justice Katherine van Rensburg, the only dissenting judge in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

She concluded that the proposed model would not comply with the Criminal Code because elements of the gaming activity would not be conducted and managed by Ontario.

Chanakya Sethi, counsel for the appealing lotteries, raised a similar argument before the Supreme Court.

“If it’s one game involving, to use a hypothetical, players from Malta, you could not be saying you are conducting and managing it at that point ‘in the province’,” Sethi said.

Justice Mahmud Jamal questioned whether gaming involving players in two jurisdictions could instead be considered to occur in both locations.

“If I’m playing poker in Ontario but I’m playing with somebody overseas, maybe it’s taking place here and there, like a telephone call,” Jamal said.

“And [the Criminal Code] doesn’t say ‘exclusively in Ontario’; it says ‘in Ontario’ … The legislation isn’t crystal clear, and the tie goes to the runner.”

Ontario And Alberta Explore Shared Liquidity

The case also addressed the ability of Canadian provinces to establish shared player pools between themselves.

The Criminal Code permits provinces to jointly conduct and manage gaming where an agreement exists between the participating jurisdictions.

“Canadians outside of Ontario will be entitled to participate if Ontario enters into an agreement with their province, which is what the Criminal Code requires,” Sinnadurai said.

Ontario and Alberta have already discussed the possibility of sharing player liquidity between their respective regulated commercial iGaming markets.

Officials from iGaming Ontario and the Alberta iGaming Corporation have previously confirmed discussions over a potential Memorandum of Understanding covering pooled player liquidity.

The Supreme Court has not provided a date for its ruling on the international liquidity appeal.