Advertisement

April 19, 2014

Individual Liability for Being an Online Gaming Customer in Canada

When asked whether “gambling” is lawful in Canada, the focus has often been upon the commercial enterprises that provide gaming and betting services to people in Canada. Less frequently asked is the question of whether the individual in Canada who registers with a website based outside of Canada that allows him or her to bet or play “real money” games online is breaking any criminal law.

Under the common law that existed prior to the enactment of the Criminal Code (the “Code”), gaming was not illegal. For a brief period of time, the Code included a provision which explicitly made it unlawful to play in a “common gaming house” (although no similar prohibition ever applied to those who bet in a “common betting house”). Section 199 of the Code, enacted in 1892, stated: “Every one who plays or looks on while any other person is playing in a common gaming-house is guilty of an offence…”

This provision was repealed in 1909. In 1913, the Code was amended to make it an offence to be “found in” a common gaming house or common betting house, a prohibition which in its basic form remains in the Code to this day. However, the prohibition against playing in a common gaming house was never re-enacted.

In the years that have followed, it has been held that in the absence of “clear and unequivocal language” in the Code that explicitly criminalizes the activities of bettors and gamers, no existing provision of the Code can be interpreted to have this effect. Creative interpretation of the present provisions of Part VII of the Code cannot render the activities of individual bettors and gamers illegal; nothing short of an amendment of the Code will suffice for that purpose.

Could a successful prosecution be brought against a person for being “found in” a place where a computer is being used for online gaming, on the basis that such activity transforms the “place” into a “common gaming house” as defined by s. 197 of the Code? Section 197 defines a “common gaming house” as:

…a place that is

  • kept for gain to which persons resort for the purpose of playing games, or
  • kept or used for the purpose of playing games
    • in which a bank is kept by one or more but not all of the players;
    • in which all or any portion of the bets on or proceeds from a game is paid, directly or indirectly, to the keeper of the place,
    • in which, directly or indirectly, a fee is charged to or paid by the players for the privilege of playing or participating in a game or using gaming equipment, or
    •  in which the chances of winning are not equally favourable to all persons who play the game, including the person, if any, who conducts the game.

It does not appear that any such “place” exists in the circumstances of online gaming. The Deputy Ministers Responsible for Justice Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Working Group, formed in 2006 to consider and report on a number of issues relating to the Code and online gaming (the “Working Group”), seems to have operated from the same point of view. One of the questions that the Working Group has considered is whether an offence should be introduced into the Code which would penalize the actions of Canadians who access online gaming that is not conducted lawfully in Canada. We are advised that the Working Group has shown no interest in criminalizing the activities of individuals who bet or gamble in this manner, being fully aware of the authoritarian tactics that would be required to enforce such a prohibition. The very fact that the question is being considered by the Working Group tends to confirm that senior Justice officials do not believe that the existing provisions of the Code provide a basis for prosecuting individuals in this manner.

As online gaming continues to expand worldwide and as the provincial governments of Canada expand their own online gaming activities, the unfettered ability of Canadian residents to participate in foreign-based online gaming will continue to present itself as a policy issue. The approach of the provincial and federal governments to this issue can be expected to evolve, and as a consequence it will remain a subject well worth revisiting from time to time.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC

About the Author

Partner

Michael Lipton is a partner in our Gaming Regulation Practice Group.

416-866-2929

About the Author

Partner

Kevin Weber is a partner in our Gaming Regulations Practice Group.

416-367-0899

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.