Supreme Court Hears Ontario’s Plan to Pool Online Players with Foreign Counterparts

The Supreme Court of Canada heard oral argument on 7 October 2026 in a reference about whether Ontario may allow players on provincially regulated online gambling sites to compete with gamblers in other countries. The matter, styled Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, asks whether the Criminal Code’s rule that provinces may “conduct and manage” gambling “in that province” permits Ontario to limit its role to the Ontario participants while foreign players remain subject to their own rules.

What the court was asked to decide on Ontario’s international iGaming plan

Ontario’s government asked the Supreme Court to determine whether its proposed model—where Ontario-regulated platforms would let locally located players join pooled games with international players—is consistent with the Criminal Code. The province told the court that it would "conduct and manage" lotteries and games only for the Ontario participants, while foreign counterparts would operate under their own domestic frameworks. Ontario’s case reached the highest court after the Ontario Court of Appeal, in November, concluded the model would be legal; the coalition of government-owned lotteries from the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec appealed to the Supreme Court.

The issue turns on two linked textual points in the Criminal Code: the meaning of the verb "conduct" and the geographic qualifier "in that province." Justice Malcolm Rowe pushed back on Ontario’s formulation during the hearing, calling the argument a “word salad.” He told counsel:

"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," Justice Rowe said. "I mean, it's playing with words."

Legal positions and the parties before the court

The appellants are a coalition of government-owned lottery corporations from the Atlantic provinces alongside those of British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec; they argue Ontario’s scheme would flout the Criminal Code and would permit Ontario to "launch online lottery schemes in collaboration with international operators" that many lotteries say already operate illegally in parts of Canada. Matthew Milne-Smith, counsel for the lotteries, warned near the end of the hearing:

"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," he said.

Ontario's position was presented by lawyers for the Attorney General of Ontario. Joshua Hunter told the court: "At the end of the day, you are only participating in a scheme conducted by Ontario in Ontario." Ananthan Sinnadurai, another lawyer for Ontario, said iGaming Ontario had directed its contracted sites to stop redirecting other Canadians to international operators, and stressed that those redirect issues fall outside the narrow legal question the province asked in its reference.

How the proposed system would operate in practice

Under Ontario's proposal:

• Ontario players would access pooled, peer-to-peer games through provincially licensed platforms regulated by iGaming Ontario.

• Players located outside Ontario—whether in other Canadian provinces or overseas—would join via their own local systems and remain subject to their own regulatory conditions.

• Any cross-border participation by Canadians in other provinces would require a province-to-province agreement between Ontario and those provinces.

Ontario argues this architecture mirrors some European poker pools, where contractual and technical arrangements allow separate regulators to confine their conduct-and-manage obligation to their own resident players. The province told the court those arrangements would pull activity away from unregulated or grey-market websites and channel more play onto regulated platforms, helping to reduce fraud and other harms.

Regulatory and policy implications for online poker, DFS and the regulated market

If the Supreme Court upholds Ontario’s approach, the immediate practical effects could include a larger online poker liquidity pool for Ontario-regulated operators, a potential pathway for provincially regulated daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests to re-emerge, and a precedent other provinces might adopt. If the court rejects the model, Ontario would face constraints on offering internationally pooled games and might seek alternative measures, such as interprovincial partnerships.

The reference traces to Ontario’s 2022 decision to open a competitive online market with private-sector operators. That market grew to roughly 50 private operators for sports betting and casino games and, according to the materials before the court, captured more than 90% of Ontario's online gambling activity—up from an estimated 30% market share in 2021. The filings acknowledged roughly 10% of online play in Ontario still occurs with sites outside Ontario's regulatory reach.

Questions raised in court and next steps

Several justices pressed about the absence of the federal government from the hearing, given the Criminal Code is a federal criminal provision. Justice Mahmud Jamal observed he was "struck by the fact that this is a criminal provision, and the Attorney General of Canada isn't here to say this is contrary to our public policy." Counsel for the lotteries suggested the federal government might remain neutral between different provincial positions.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment. Chief Justice Richard Wagner told parties the judges would take the case under advisement. No timeline for a written decision was supplied during the hearing.

What operators and regulators will be watching

Operators, platform providers and provincial regulators will look to the court’s written ruling for guidance on the permissible scope of cross-border, peer-to-peer pooling. Vendors supplying player-liquidity technology, geolocation and contractual compliance tools will be attentive to whether Ontario’s model is affirmed, since an approval could trigger demand for cross-border integration services. For regulators, the decision will clarify whether a province can restrict its conduct-and-manage obligations to its resident players while relying on contractual measures to confine regulatory responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming judgment will determine whether Ontario’s attempt to grow its regulated market by importing international liquidity is a lawful application of the Criminal Code’s provincial conduct-and-manage power or an unlawful expansion of provincial authority.