CANADIAN REGULATION
License to skill: regulatory approaches to skill-gaming machines in Ontario JACK TADMAN UNPICKS TWO PROMINENT CASES TO ARGUE FOR A COLLABORATIVE AND DETERRENCE-FOCUSED APPROACH TO REGULATING SKILL GAMING
Based on the above, it’s easy to understand why companies would prefer to provide products that resemble gambling (but are missing one of the legal elements of gambling) over actual gambling products, especially if the companies don’t enjoy “showing feet” to the regulator. However, what makes these “not-gambling” products engaging is often the gambling mechanics. As a result, “not-gambling” products have the look and feel of gambling products and attempt to come as close to the line between gambling and not-gambling as possible without crossing that line. How do we ensure that the products are “not-gambling”? In Canada, like many other jurisdictions, gambling has three elements: consideration, chance, and prize. 1 Remove one of those elements, and you’re not providing a gambling product.
Introduction: Gambling and “not-gambling” Readers of the IMGL Magazine are familiar with the heavy regulation in the gambling industry. Applying for a local licence or registration? Be prepared to answer questions about relevant topics like the car you bought in university (even though you didn’t have a job – how did you afford it?), how your family really made their money (even though they own a double-digit number of Arby’s franchises in the Midwest), and whether that payment for bunion ointment was actually part of a nefarious scheme to funnel revenue to unsavoury characters secretly involved in your business (“Send feet pics.” “Ok.” “There are no bunions on your feet.” “That’s because I used the ointment.” “You’re going to have to come in for another in person interview. Don’t wear socks”.)
1 See for example R. v. Robinson (1917), 29 C.C.C. 153 (Sask. C.A.).
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2025
PAGE 7
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker