Canada’s Supreme Court heard arguments on October 7 concerning Ontario’s plan to allow players on its regulated iGaming platforms to compete against international players in peer-to-peer games such as online poker and daily fantasy sports (DFS).
The hearing lasted nearly three hours, with lawyers representing Ontario, provincial lottery corporations, and other interested parties presenting their arguments over whether international shared liquidity would be permitted under Canada’s Criminal Code.
The case, officially known as Atlantic Lottery Corporation et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, follows years of debate over the restrictions placed on Ontario’s regulated online poker market since its launch in April 2022.
In November 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled 4–1 that Ontario’s proposed international shared-liquidity model would be legal. However, several provincial lottery corporations appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court has now heard arguments and reserved judgment, with no timeline announced for a final decision. The outcome could have major implications for the future of regulated online poker and DFS in Ontario, as well as the development of shared liquidity in other Canadian provinces.
A Positive Result Would Boost Regulated Operators
Ontario launched its regulated iGaming market in April 2022, allowing multiple private operators to offer online gambling under provincial oversight. Alberta has since followed a similar regulatory model.
Ontario now has more than 50 regulated gaming operators offering sports betting, online casino games, and online poker. However, Ontario online poker remains restricted to a ring-fenced provincial player pool, limiting tournament sizes, prize pools, and the overall appeal of regulated poker platforms.
Ontario has been seeking a way to allow players on its regulated platforms to compete against international players while maintaining provincial oversight of the games offered to Ontarians.
If international shared liquidity is ultimately permitted and implemented, players on regulated platforms such as GGPoker Ontario could potentially participate in much larger international tournaments, benefit from bigger guarantees, and enjoy a wider selection of games.
Such a change could also make Ontario’s regulated poker market more competitive with offshore platforms, encouraging more players to choose provincially regulated sites and potentially generating additional tax revenue.
However, a favorable Supreme Court ruling would not automatically establish international player pooling. Ontario and participating operators would still need to finalize the necessary regulatory arrangements and technical integrations before international games could become available.
The proposal continues to face opposition from provincial lottery corporations represented by the Canadian Alliance for Regulated Gaming, which argues that Ontario’s proposed model would exceed the authority granted to provincial governments under the Criminal Code.
Offshore Operators Using Ontario Platforms as “Springboards” for Other Provinces?
Despite the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling, lottery corporations from several provinces, including British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, continue to oppose international shared liquidity.
The central legal dispute concerns Section 207(1)(a) of Canada’s Criminal Code, which permits provincial governments to conduct and manage gaming schemes within their provinces.
Ontario argues that it can legally conduct and manage games offered to Ontario players even when those games involve participants located outside Canada. Its position is that international player pooling would not surrender Ontario’s authority over the regulated gaming activities taking place within the province.
The opposing lottery corporations argue that the Criminal Code does not authorize provinces to conduct and manage gaming schemes that involve international participation in the manner Ontario proposes.
They have also raised concerns about Ontario-licensed operators continuing to serve or advertise to players in other Canadian provinces where those operators do not hold local authorization.
According to the lottery corporations, Ontario’s regulated market could effectively provide a springboard for operators to expand their presence in other provinces without obtaining the necessary approvals.
Ontario’s legal representatives countered that the province’s proposed model would not permit players in other Canadian provinces to participate without agreements between the respective provincial governments.
During the hearing, several Supreme Court justices questioned both sides about the meaning of conducting and managing gaming within a province.
Justice Malcolm Rowe challenged Ontario’s argument that contractual arrangements with international partners would necessarily constitute conducting and managing the games under the Criminal Code.
Justice Mahmud Jamal, meanwhile, questioned whether the law necessarily requires every element of a gaming activity to take place exclusively within Ontario, illustrating the competing interpretations before the Court.
A Final Decision Could Reshape Canadian Online Poker
With oral arguments concluded, the Supreme Court will now consider whether Ontario’s proposed international shared-liquidity model complies with Canada’s Criminal Code. The decision could have far-reaching implications for online poker in Canada, particularly as other provinces explore regulated gaming markets and shared player pools.
A decision in Ontario’s favor could open the door to much larger regulated online poker networks, allowing Ontario players to compete in international tournaments while remaining on provincially regulated platforms.
The implications could extend beyond Ontario, particularly for online poker in Alberta. The province participated in the proceedings as an intervener and has expressed interest in international shared liquidity as it develops its own regulated iGaming market.
Separately, Ontario and Alberta have been discussing an agreement that could allow their regulated poker markets to share players domestically.
Such an arrangement would be distinct from the international liquidity proposal before the Supreme Court. The Criminal Code already provides a framework for interprovincial gaming agreements, meaning Ontario and Alberta would not necessarily need to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision to pursue domestic shared liquidity.
However, no Ontario–Alberta poker liquidity agreement has been finalized or implemented.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s task is to determine whether Ontario’s proposed model is legally permissible, rather than whether international shared liquidity would benefit the gaming industry or provincial lottery corporations.
As Canadian Gaming Business reported following the October 7 hearing, Justice Malcolm Rowe emphasized the distinction between the legal question before the Court and the commercial concerns raised by the opposing lottery corporations.
“I’m here to figure out what this statute says is legally permissible,” Rowe said.
For now, Ontario’s online poker market remains ring-fenced, and players must wait for the Supreme Court’s decision before the future of international shared liquidity becomes clearer.
