Three Canadian lottery corporations have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to review a recent Ontario appellate ruling that could reshape how peer-to-peer online gambling operates in the country. The appeal challenges a legal interpretation that would allow Ontario to connect players in certain iGaming products with users located outside the province and even beyond Canada’s borders.

Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation have filed jointly, while the Atlantic Lottery Corporation submitted a separate appeal. Together, the organizations are disputing a November decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal that sided with Ontario’s position on player pooling. The respondent in the case is Ontario’s attorney general, Doug Downey, whose office declined to comment when contacted. The case is formally titled “Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario.”

Lotteries maintain long-standing objections

The dispute traces back to a reference question raised in early 2024, when Ontario sought clarity on whether its regulated iGaming framework could legally support shared liquidity with players in other jurisdictions. At the time, Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, and the Atlantic Lottery Corporation participated as intervenors through the Canadian Lottery Coalition. They were joined in opposition by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke.

Ontario currently requires that online poker and paid daily fantasy sports players be physically located within provincial borders. The reference question asked whether, under the Criminal Code, Ontario could connect those players with participants elsewhere while still meeting the requirement that gaming be “conducted and managed” in the province. Ontario’s attorney general, the Canadian Gaming Association, and several private operators argued that a pooled-liquidity model would remain lawful because the operational control would stay in Ontario.

The lotteries disagreed, maintaining that such arrangements would break the territorial limits set out in federal law. After months of deliberation, four members of a five-judge appellate panel accepted Ontario’s interpretation, while one judge aligned with the lotteries’ position.

Interpreting where gaming takes place

In its reasoning, the Ontario Court of Appeal focused on the wording of the Criminal Code provision governing provincial lotteries. The judges acknowledged that the phrase allowing provinces to “conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province” could support more than one reading.

“The phrase ‘conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province’ can be read narrowly to prohibit linking in-province gaming to gaming in foreign jurisdictions,” the judges wrote in the verdict. “However, a broader reading that permits provincial governments to enter into cooperative arrangements with foreign jurisdictions is also available. On our reading, the text favours this broader interpretation.”

The lotteries’ appeal pushes back against that conclusion. In filings to the Supreme Court, they argue that “in that province” should be understood as meaning entirely within provincial borders. They also reject Ontario’s argument that a “real and substantial connection” to the province satisfies the Criminal Code requirement.

The Atlantic Lottery Corporation submitted its notice of appeal on Dec. 10, and the Supreme Court officially opened the file on Dec. 18, following the 30-day appeal window that began when the appellate decision was released on Nov. 12.

Uncertainty around implementation and next steps

The appellate ruling itself noted that Ontario has not yet outlined a concrete plan for operating an internationally pooled model. Even so, the decision sparked discussion about future possibilities. Joseph Hillier, president and chief executive of iGaming Ontario, said the agency sees potential upside while recognizing the need for caution.

“I think the opportunities could be significant,” he said. “There’s definitely an eagerness to move things along as quickly as possible. But at the same time, it’s understanding where the true opportunities are. Peer-to-peer poker is something that people have spoken about, daily fantasy, maybe even super progressive jackpots on the casino side.”

The court’s interpretation also leaves room for agreements between provinces, rather than only with foreign jurisdictions. Hillier suggested that conversations could eventually take place between Ontario and Alberta once Alberta establishes its own regulated commercial iGaming market.

For now, those prospects are on hold. The Supreme Court appeal is expected to trigger a lengthy review process, delaying any immediate changes. Given the swift opposition from Manitoba, British Columbia, and Atlantic Canada—combined with ongoing frustration over advertising by Ontario-licensed operators appearing in other provinces—interprovincial cooperation on pooled liquidity appears uncertain in the near term.

Source:

Canadian lotteries challenge Ontario player pooling decision in Supreme Court, canadiangamingbusiness.com, December 23 2025