Supreme Court of Canada Reserves Judgment on Ontario's International Play Model
What Happened on October 7
On October 7, 2026 the Supreme Court of Canada heard Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario (file 42141), the appeal over whether Ontario may let players on its regulated online casinos and sportsbooks share games with people outside Canada. The hearing ran for a few hours, and the court's docket records the outcome in two words: judgment reserved. No date has been set for a ruling.
The case started as a provincial reference. By Order in Council 210/2024, dated February 2, 2024, Ontario asked its Court of Appeal whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users could play against individuals outside the country. On November 12, 2025, in 2025 ONCA 770, the Court of Appeal answered yes by a 4–1 majority. The lottery corporations of Atlantic Canada, British Columbia and Manitoba filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2025, and Loto-Québec was added as an appellant by order on April 2, 2026.
Because this is a reference, the appeal goes to the Supreme Court as of right; no leave application was needed. Whatever the court decides will be an advisory opinion, but in practice provinces and operators treat such opinions as binding.
The Argument Turns on Three Words
The dispute is about the phrase "in that province" in section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the clause that lets a provincial government conduct and manage lottery schemes. The appellants say the words mean what they say: a province can run gaming inside its borders, and pooling Ontario players with players in Europe or elsewhere goes beyond that. Ontario's position, accepted by the Court of Appeal majority, is that the province only conducts and manages the Ontario side of a shared game, while foreign players remain under their own regulators' rules.
The model the Court of Appeal approved is narrower than the headline suggests. Commentary on the 2025 opinion describes it as covering peer-to-peer products such as poker and daily fantasy, where a deeper shared pool matters. Players from other Canadian provinces would still be outside Ontario's market unless an interprovincial agreement exists.
Reporting from the hearing by Covers quoted Justice Malcolm Rowe calling Ontario's framing "word salad" and questioning whether control by contract amounts to conducting and managing. The same report quotes Ontario's counsel as telling the court that iGaming Ontario has instructed the sites it oversees to stop redirecting Canadians from other provinces to international sites — an issue the appellants raised and Ontario argued is separate from the model itself.
| Date | Step |
|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2024 | Ontario refers the question (OIC 210/2024) |
| Nov 12, 2025 | Court of Appeal: yes, 4–1 (2025 ONCA 770) |
| Dec 10, 2025 | Atlantic Lottery files the appeal |
| Apr 2, 2026 | Loto-Québec joins as appellant |
| Apr 13, 2026 | Alberta's Attorney General joins as intervener |
| Jun 15, 2026 | Kahnawà:ke council opts out |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Hearing; judgment reserved |
Source: Supreme Court of Canada docket 42141 and Court of Appeal for Ontario reference page COA-24-CV-0185, read October 13, 2026.
Who Is in the Room — and Who Is Not
The docket lists four interveners: the Canadian Gaming Association, Flutter Entertainment plc, NSUS Group Inc. and NSUS Limited (the company behind GGPoker), and the Attorney General of Alberta. Alberta's presence is the one to watch: the province opened its own regulated iGaming market on July 13, 2026, and its iGaming corporation has spoken publicly about pooling players with Ontario. A ruling on what "in that province" allows will shape any such arrangement.
Two absences are worth noting. The federal government, which owns the Criminal Code, did not argue the case; Covers reports that Justice Mahmud Jamal remarked on it from the bench. And the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, home to the commission that licenses many offshore-facing casinos, wrote to the court on June 15, 2026 to say it would not participate.
Where Crypto Casinos Sit in This Fight
None of the crypto casinos we review is a party to the case, and the model under appeal concerns Ontario's licensed operators, not offshore sites. But the province line drawn by section 207 is the same line that already decides who can sign up where. Our database shows how operators handle it today:
| Ontario in the terms | Casinos |
|---|---|
| Excluded or sent to an Ontario site | 34 |
| Not mentioned | 25 |
| Also in Ontario's market | 1 (Golden Tiger) |
| Total tracked | 60 |
Source: our tracked database of 60 crypto casinos, October 2026; classification from each operator's terms and restricted-country list. Casino Days and Jackpot City are counted in the first row: their crypto sites exclude Ontario, while the brand serves Ontario through a separate company and site.
The split is the practical point. More than half of the crypto brands we track write Ontario out of their terms, usually because they hold no AGCO registration. Jackpot City went further after Alberta's launch and added Alberta to its excluded list alongside Ontario. If the Supreme Court sides with Ontario, the regulated market gains a tool offshore sites have always had — global player pools — which weakens one argument for playing offshore. If it sides with the lotteries, Ontario's market stays domestic and the current map holds.
What It Means for Canadian Players
Nothing changes on the day of a ruling for players outside Ontario: international play, if allowed, applies to Ontario's own market. For crypto players, the useful checks are the same as before:
- Read the restricted list, not the banner. Province exclusions live in the terms; a site that accepts your registration may still void winnings for a barred province.
- Watch Alberta. As Alberta's market matures, more offshore brands may add it to their excluded lists, as Jackpot City already has.
- Separate entities, separate cashiers. Where a brand runs an Ontario-licensed site, that site is a different company with its own payment list — usually without crypto.
We will update this story when the Supreme Court releases its opinion in file 42141.
Sources
Supreme Court of Canada — Docket 42141, Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario- Court of Appeal for Ontario — Reference re online gaming and international play (COA-24-CV-0185)