Services and Content
Account Registration and Requirements
License Terms and Other Intellectual Property Terms
Fair Use and Abuse
Relleases, Disclaimers of Warranty, Limitation of Liability, and Indemnification
Canada Online Gambling Laws
Canadians using gambling services spend over $11.3 billion dollars every year. Canada is home to several premier gambling software developers such as Cryptologic, yet the legality of gambling in Canada remains rather ambiguous. Customers looking to play online poker, slots, table games or bingo have no need to fear about being detained for illegal activity. However, it is still advised that every prospective gambler in Canada understand the legislature pertaining to online gambling as best they can before placing any form of wager.
Criminal Code of Canada
Gambling of any sort was initially prohibited by the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892. It banned both profitable and charitable forms of gambling in all provinces of Canada. However, the gambling industry has greatly changed since then and so has the public’s perception of gambling. In 1969, the Canadian government took the first step towards relaxing the prohibition on gambling by exempting all forms of gambling done for charitable purposes only. The purpose of this exemption was to give provinces control over the creation of lotteries in order to fund social programs. The most significant use of this exemption was performed by the province of Quebec, who utilized provincial lotteries to fund the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics.
Gambling Crown Corporations
Gambling crown corporations are designated entities established by the provincial government to regulate all gambling activity. The very first two were created in 1970 by the government of Quebec to regulate horse racing and lotteries. Other regions including Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia quickly followed suit, creating their own corporations to supervise gambling. Now, every province has its own crown corporation that oversees all online gambling aspects including casino, poker and bingo wagering.
Gambling Rules Based on Provinces
The popularity of province-regulated lotteries has allowed every Canadian province to regulate gambling activity within their own territory. The overreaching status of online gambling, according to the Canadian government, is that it is still illegal. However, the difficulties of determining jurisdiction rights in modern day online gambling, where Canadian gamblers can play at offshore gambling sites, have forced the Canadian government to give each province the right to determine the legality of specific gambling formats.
Provinces Prohibiting Gambling
The 1985 amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code that allows certain forms of computerized gambling is the origin of online gambling legalization. The amendment gave each province the right to regulate slots games and other computerized forms of gambling. This also effectively gave the provinces the ability to regulate casino-style online games such as video poker, slots and table games.
Most Canadian provinces have taken advantage of the amendment by legalizing gambling activity on all casino-style gaming. This means that Canadian players are legally able to engage in slots, video poker, Blackjack and other common games found in established casino sites.
Video Lottery Terminals
The provinces of Ontario and British Columbia do allow gambling on certain casino-style games but still prohibit the use of video lottery terminals. The 1985 amendment regarding computerized gambling makes a distinction between ordinary slot machines and video lottery terminals.
Slot machines are classified as having individual random number generators. Comparatively, video lottery terminals are defined as machines linked to a central computer that uses a random number generator to produce results that are similar to a virtual bingo game. Each lottery terminal that is part of a central computer network receives a randomized set of numbers.
The central computer uses its random number generator to draw a specific number that is relayed to each terminal. The terminal checks if the number drawn by the center computer corresponds to any of the numbers in their randomized set. The terminal will then perform a specific action that may improve or reduce the chances of the gambler receiving a payout.
Ontario and British Columbia do allow gamblers to play online slot machines but prohibit the use of video lottery terminals. Most Canadian gamblers do not have to worry because slots games are much more common compared to video lottery terminal systems.
Running a Gambling Service
The majority of Canadian provinces allow their residents to gamble at common casinos, sportsbooks and poker sites but do not allow their residents to actively operate a gambling service. The Canadian Criminal Code still makes it illegal to operate any form of common betting house – including an online gambling site. All provinces currently adhere to this prohibition.
However, this has not stopped the Khanawake reserve in Quebec from offering server space to online gambling sites. The Khanawake reserve has its own regulatory gaming commission that gives gambling sites the ability tap into the North American gambling population. The Khanawake reserve still falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec, where it is illegal to operate a gambling service. The reserve has yet to be charged by the provincial government and is a hub for many top gambling sites that cater to the North American market.
The legality of online gambling in Canada will likely remain ambiguous for decades to come. The ultimate bottom line for Canadian gamblers is that the legality of online gambling is regulated by each province. Most gamblers will be able to legally participate in online gambling but should check to make sure that the province in which they reside allows their preferred form of online gambling.
Please note that under Section 512(f), any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability and prosecution according to the Laws of Canada and are mirrored here from The U.S.A.
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION LAW
Fraud is using deceit or dishonest means for the purpose of depriving another of money, property or a legal right.
There are several different types of "fraud" as defined by the Criminal Code. However, in general, "Fraud and/or Deceit" occur when an individual, entity, uses false and important facts to convince a "victim" to rely on those facts. When the victim reasonably relies on those facts and was harmed by the "deceit" or the "deception" - we have what is defined as intentional fraud.
Permissive fraud stems from a promise that is important to in a given matter, but one that the entity, person, or individual never intends to do, and thus never performs that obligatory promise. They do this to induce the "victim" to rely on that promise, and when the victim does so, he or she can reasonably be "harmed" or "damaged" by those false promises.
Constructive fraud, is a type of fraudulent act that is often referred to as negligent misrepresentation. This occurs when an entity or individual misrepresents to the "victim" that an material important fact is true - but it's actually false. The entity or individual may have honestly believed that the false misrepresentation was true, yet the they had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when they made it, and that individual or entity intends for the "victim" to rely on that mis-information, and the "victim" does.. then they too have been harmed by a false representation that they either knew, or should have know was actually "true."
Civil fraud, deceit and misrepresentation are part of Civil Code Sections 1709, 1710 and 1572 and 1573. You must plead FRAUD specifically, flat out right to the point. Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74; Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268)
You must prove each element of a "fraud claim" factually and specifically. (Hall v. Department of Adoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper v. Equity General Insurance (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1262.)
To obtain damages for these infringements, you must PROVE each of the following ELEMENTS:
1. the actual misrepresentation 2. knowledge that either it was known to be a misrepresentation, or the party "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" that it was misrepresentation 3,. An intention to defraud (mostly showing how the organization, entity or individual attempted to "induce" reliance on the false information, 4. justifiable reliance on that information to the degree that "you" the "victim" relied upon it in whole or part and finally 5. the resulting damage done by the misrepresentation.
However, it's important to note, that "misrepresentation" can be verbal, written or even "implied" by conduct. (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567.)
“…false representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.” (Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55.)
U.S.C 17 § 512(f) provides for penalties for the deliberate misrepresentation of "alleged" copyright or trademark infringements, even when the party making that said complain "believes it to be true" but "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" that it was not. Ooops, error, does occur, and these aren't considered "deliberate misrepresentations" but errors. When license counsel makes "error" outside of "good faith" and what is an obvious and deliberate attempt to silence and infringe upon "FAIR USE" (U.S.C. 17 § 107) by "party" who "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" better.. we still have a cause of action for a tort claim.
*Also Please Note*
All activity on The Great Canadian Grid and this site www.greatcanadiangrid.ca and
Rules of DMCA & TOS are governed by the laws of Canada.