Ontario's Shared Liquidity Ruling: What the Court Decided and What Is Pending

Why an Ontario poker lobby is a closed room

Since the regulated market opened on April 4, 2022, an Ontario poker site has been allowed to seat only players who are in Ontario. The rule comes from Standard 3.02 of the AGCO's Registrar's Standards for Internet Gaming: "Games on gaming sites shall be provided only within Ontario, unless they are conducted in conjunction with the government of another province." Operators must "detect and dynamically monitor the location of a player attempting to play a game", block play they cannot verify, and detect software that could get around the check.

For peer-to-peer games such as poker, which the Standards define as games where "players gamble against each other rather than against the house", that means a ring-fenced player pool. The same brand that runs one global network elsewhere runs a separate, smaller Ontario network.

The question Ontario asked the court

The rule rests on a reading of Criminal Code paragraph 207(1)(a), which lets a province "conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province". Ontario put the issue to its Court of Appeal by Order in Council 210/2024. According to the Supreme Court of Canada case summary, the question was whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users could take part in games and betting involving individuals outside Canada, as set out in a schedule, and, if not, to what extent.

The model in the schedule, as summarized by the law firm Torys, kept players in other parts of Canada out unless Ontario reached an agreement with their province or territory. The issue was international pooling, not a national pool.

What the majority held

The five-judge panel (Tulloch, Gillese, van Rensburg, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) released its decision on November 12, 2025. Four judges answered the first question yes: the proposed model would remain lawful under s. 207(1)(a). That made the second question unnecessary.

Commentary from Osler and Torys summarizes the reasoning this way:

• Paragraph 207(1)(a) does not require a lottery scheme to operate physically and exclusively within the province. It can be linked with foreign jurisdictions, as long as Ontario players' participation stays under the province's conduct and management.
• The Code deals expressly with schemes run with another province but is silent on other countries. The majority read that silence as leaving foreign links to the provinces.
• Because legislation is presumed to be territorial, whether people in other countries may take part is for those countries to decide.
• The Supreme Court's earlier Earth Future Lottery decision dealt with a different provision and a different scheme, and did not bind the court.

Osler notes that the conclusion rested on assumptions: that Ontario's current framework complies with s. 207(1)(a), that players from elsewhere in Canada join only under an agreement with Ontario, and that iGaming Ontario keeps conducting and managing internet gaming in the province.

The dissent

Justice van Rensburg agreed the case turned on s. 207(1)(a) but would have answered no. As summarized by the Supreme Court and Torys, she found that pooling funds between Ontario and international players creates one interlocking scheme, not an Ontario scheme that merely interacts with a foreign one. Because the games would not be entirely conducted and managed in Ontario, they fall outside the exception, and Ontario's involvement in the international side would breach the Code's gaming prohibitions. She also saw the express permission for interprovincial schemes as a sign that Parliament chose not to extend the same permission to foreign ones.

Where the case stands now

The decision did not change any lobby on its own. The Supreme Court docket, No. 42141, shows the following:

Even if the Supreme Court agrees with the majority, Osler points out that the AGCO would still have to decide what regulatory changes are needed, including to Standard 3.02, and iGaming Ontario would have to decide whether and how to change its operating agreement or policies. The Court of Appeal itself described the details of how agreements would work as unclear, because the Attorney General had not specified them. Osler expected Ontario to look first at arrangements with Nevada, New Jersey and the United Kingdom, but that is a law firm's expectation, not a decision.

What it means for an Ontario player today

• The pool is still Ontario-only. Standard 3.02 has not changed, so cash tables, tournaments and fantasy contests on Ontario sites draw only on players located in Ontario.
• Location checks stay. The duty to verify and keep monitoring where you are comes from the Standards, not from the court case, and would remain under any pooled model, since Ontario must keep conducting and managing its own players' participation.
• Other provinces are a separate track. The question did not cover a national pool. Players elsewhere in Canada could join an Ontario pool only under an agreement with Ontario.
• Watch the regulator, not the headlines. The change, if it comes, will appear as amended Standards and iGaming Ontario announcements. Our Ontario casino guide lists brands in the regulated market, and our overview of Canadian online casinos covers what is available outside Ontario.

Bigger pools mean more tables at more hours, and possibly more tempting tournaments. The responsible gaming page explains how to set deposit and time limits before you sit down.

This is general information based on the court record and published commentary, not legal advice.