Canada's Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Ontario's Plan to Pool Players With the World

Four provincial lottery corporations asked the Supreme Court of Canada on 7 October to overturn the ruling that would let Ontario's poker and fantasy players sit at the same tables as players abroad. The nine judges reserved judgment, and no date has been set for a decision.

• The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal (file 42141) on 7 October 2026 and reserved judgment, according to its docket, as we previewed in September
• The appellants are Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries and Loto-Québec, which joined in April; they argue that "in that province" in section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code bars Ontario from linking its games with players abroad
• They are appealing Reference re iGaming Ontario, 2025 ONCA 770, in which the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled by four judges to one on 12 November 2025 that Ontario's proposed model would remain lawful
• Flutter Entertainment, NSUS Group, the Canadian Gaming Association and the Attorney General of Alberta intervened; the court barred them from taking a position on the outcome, and Alberta's factum says it takes none
• Alberta's factum says its own iGaming Alberta regime, now launching operators such as PowerPlay, relies on the same section and does not bar foreign players from its pools

Ontario's Lottery Rivals Asked Nine Judges to Read "In That Province" Literally

The Supreme Court heard the appeal on Wednesday 7 October and reserved judgment the same day, the docket for file 42141 shows. Ontario began the reference by Order in Council 210/2024 on 2 February 2024, asking whether its online gaming would remain lawful if users could play and bet with people outside Canada under a model set out in a schedule.

Section 207(1)(a) makes it lawful for a provincial government, alone or with another province, "to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province". The Court of Appeal majority answered yes. Justice Katherine van Rensburg dissented, finding that Ontario's part in the international liquidity side of the model would breach the Code, according to the Supreme Court's case summary.

The appellants' factum, filed in February, rests on the Supreme Court's own 2003 opinion in Reference re Earth Future Lottery, which upheld a ruling that a Prince Edward Island charity could not sell lottery tickets around the world under the neighbouring clause, section 207(1)(b), because "in that province" imposed a territorial limit. The same words must mean the same thing, the lottery corporations argue, noting that Ontario's Attorney General argued for the territorial reading in that case. "Ontario's proposed scheme flouts the Criminal Code," they wrote. All five Court of Appeal judges had held that Earth Future did not decide this reference.

The appellants also put the industry's conduct in the frame: their factum says Flutter offers PokerStars.ca in Ontario and PokerStars.com to Canadians in other provinces, and cites a Flutter witness's cross-examination for the claim that about 50% of Flutter's Canadian revenue comes from outside Ontario. They estimate that unlawful operators took C$1.86 billion (approximately $1.3 billion) from Canadian players in 2023. In reply, they said Ontario had not explained "how it can offer regulatory protection to its players when it pairs them with gamblers beyond the reach of Ontario's laws". Flutter's factum says no court has decided these allegations and it has had no real chance to answer them.

Ontario Says It Would Still Run Every Ontario Seat

Ontario's factum describes two linked schemes. Players in Ontario would keep using iGaming Ontario sites under unchanged rules on identity, age, location, money laundering and responsible gambling; players abroad would use international sites in their own jurisdictions, which Ontario would not conduct or manage. "Ontario's conduct and management of the lottery scheme in this province would not change," it wrote. The territorial limit in section 207(1)(a) exists to stop provinces running lotteries in each other's territory, Ontario argues, and Canadians outside Ontario would be geo-blocked from both sides of the pool.

Its case is about channelisation. It cites a 2024 Ipsos survey that found 31% of Ontario's online gamblers still used unlawful sites and 13.6% used only those, and says its closed pool means fewer tables, fewer games and smaller prizes than offshore sites offer.

At the hearing, Ontario's counsel Ananthan Sinnadurai told the court, "We choose who we partner with. We still run the system in this province," according to SiGMA and Focus Gaming News. The appellants' counsel Matthew Milne-Smith called the Court of Appeal's reliance on the absence of an express ban on international play "backwards", and Justice Mahmud Jamal remarked that the lower court's reasoning seemed to have been approached "back-to-front", SiGMA reported. Both outlets reported that judges questioned how Ontario could enforce its rules against players and operators beyond its borders.

Flutter, NSUS Group, the parent of GGPoker, and the Canadian Gaming Association were each allowed 10 minutes by videoconference, after the court refused in April to add them as respondents, and Alberta five.

Earth Future Gives the Lottery Corporations Their Cleanest Argument

The appellants have reduced a policy dispute to one question of wording. It is hard to argue that "in that province" means one thing in clause (a) and another in clause (b), so Ontario distinguishes Earth Future on its facts: a charity lottery sold worldwide is not, it says, an Ontario scheme linked to a foreign one. The remark attributed to Justice Jamal suggests at least one judge doubted the Court of Appeal's starting point. One remark from the bench does not decide an appeal, though, and the majority below rested on Parliament's 1969 purpose of handing gaming policy to the provinces.

The Grey Market Next Door Is the Real Dispute

The lottery corporations already pool players among themselves by agreement; Ontario, their factum says, has made no such deal with any province. Their objection is to links with the international sites of operators whose brands, they say, still take bets from their residents. Ontario calls that irrelevant to the question it asked, and its witness said under cross-examination that it could prohibit links with operators proven to run unlawful schemes in other provinces. Shared pools elsewhere rest on agreements between regulators: France, Spain, Italy and Portugal signed a poker liquidity convention in July 2017, and Pennsylvania became the sixth member of the US Multi-State Internet Gaming Agreement in April 2025. The Canadian Gaming Association says Ontario would admit international players on its own terms and in agreement with foreign regulators, but in Canada the obstacle is the Criminal Code, not the technology.

Alberta Has More Riding on the Answer Than Its Neutral Brief Suggests

Alberta told the court it takes no position on the outcome, yet its factum says iGaming Alberta relies on section 207(1)(a) for a scheme that does not bar people in foreign jurisdictions from its sites through pooled liquidity. A ruling for the lottery corporations could narrow what Alberta's new market can offer, just as operators including Stake prepare to launch there. A ruling for Ontario would, on Alberta's own reading of the Code, support both open markets in pooling poker abroad, while the monopoly provinces keep their own pools at home.

The Supreme Court has been asked what four words in the Criminal Code mean, but the answer will decide whether Canada's open markets can compete for poker players beyond their borders. Until it rules, Ontario's tables stay closed to the world.