Ontario’s international iGaming proposal heard by the Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments on 7 October 2026 about the Province of Ontario’s proposal to allow its online players to compete with counterparts abroad. The reference case, Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, was taken under consideration by the justices after several hours of questions and replies; Chief Justice Richard Wagner said the court would reserve judgment.

What Ontario’s international iGaming proposal says

Ontario proposes to allow players physically located in the province to take part in peer‑to‑peer games — such as poker and paid fantasy contests — with players connecting from other countries. Ontario residents would access those contests through sites and apps regulated by iGaming Ontario; international opponents would use platforms subject to regulation in their home jurisdictions. Ontario says it would only “conduct and manage” the activity with respect to its own players, while rules applicable to foreign players would need to meet standards acceptable to the province.

The legal question: the phrase “conduct and manage” in the Criminal Code

The central dispute before the Supreme Court is whether the plan complies with the Criminal Code clause that permits a province “to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province.” The litigants — a coalition of Atlantic public lotteries together with British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec — argue that Ontario’s model exceeds that legislative competence.

“This court should not approve a dramatic expansion of online gaming to encompass foreign gamblers based on handwaving about how it's going to happen in practice,” said lawyer Matthew Milne‑Smith, who represents the provincial lotteries, near the end of the hearing.

Justice Malcolm Rowe objected to Ontario’s formulation, calling the argument about international contracts a kind of “word salad” and asking whether controlling by contractual arrangements amounts to “conduct and manage” within the statute’s legal meaning.

Procedure and case background

The dispute arose after Ontario opened a competitive online gambling market in 2022 with the aim of moving play onto provincially regulated platforms. In 2024 the provincial government referred a question to the Court of Appeal to resolve whether it was lawful to connect Ontario players with international players. The Court of Appeal decision in November 2025 upheld the provincial plan; the lottery coalition appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, prompting the 7 October 2026 hearing.

During the hearing, lawyer Joshua Hunter, representing the Attorney General of Ontario, argued the scheme would be implemented through contracts and mechanisms similar to those used by some European jurisdictions to share poker liquidity: “At the end of the day, you are only participating in a scheme conducted by Ontario in Ontario,” Hunter said.

Implications of the ruling for Ontario’s regulated market

A ruling for Ontario would open the door to expanding online poker and to the possible reintroduction of regulated paid fantasy contests within the province, increasing the liquidity available on provincial platforms. If the Supreme Court rules against Ontario, the province’s ability to compete internationally and to attract players who currently use unregulated sites would be limited, and Ontario could explore internal alternatives or partnerships with other provinces.

Ontario already has approximately 50 private operators in its sports‑betting and online casino market. Recent studies cited during the proceedings indicate that more than 90% of Ontario’s online players use provincially regulated platforms, versus an estimated 30% in 2021; therefore roughly the remaining 10% play on sites regulated outside Ontario or in grey markets.

Arguments from public lotteries and Ontario’s responses

The public lotteries’ coalition contends the provincial model would allow Ontario to “launch lottery schemes in collaboration with international operators” that, the lotteries say, currently operate illegally in other parts of Canada. They also allege that private operators use their Ontario platforms as “springboards” to promote international sites to Canadians in other provinces.

Conversely, Ontario said it has ordered sites in its market to stop redirecting Canadians from other provinces to international operators, and that issues relating to illegal operators more broadly are not at the legal core of the reference. Lawyer Ananthan Sinnadurai noted that instruction during the hearing.

What the Court asked and who participated

The justices raised points about the territorial scope of the Criminal Code and about the absence of the federal government from the hearing; Justice Mahmud Jamal observed that this is a penal provision and noted the surprise at the lack of intervention by the Attorney General of Canada. In addition to Richard Wagner, Malcolm Rowe and Mahmud Jamal, the legal teams that appeared included those representing Ontario and the lottery coalition; lawyers named in the hearing include Matthew Milne‑Smith and Chanakya Sethi for the lotteries, and Joshua Hunter and Ananthan Sinnadurai for Ontario.

Next steps and regulatory context

The Supreme Court did not provide a timetable for judgment and announced it would take the matter under consideration. The outcome may influence Ontario’s strategy to channel activity from unregulated sites to provincial platforms and the decisions other provinces make about sharing international liquidity. The legal and political debate continues while the court prepares its decision.

Related references: see our coverage in the [regulation](/regulation) section and articles on the operators market in [b2b](/b2b).