This case was an appeal of a Small Claims Court ruling against a Casino who was ordered to pay the Plaintiff poker player the winnings laid out on the payout legend written on the felt table, rather than the winnings that would be paid out pursuant to the official rules that had been approved by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”).
The Divisional Court upheld the decision, primarily because:
- the Casino did not follow its own approved Rules of the Game when they posted a Legend on the poker table that differed from the approved Rules, which created ambiguity;
- the Casino failed to include on the table Legend any notice (by way of a footnote or otherwise) to alert the players that the payout is subject to the official Rules of the Game which they can and should access;
- If the intention of the statutory scheme requiring government approval for all games of chance was to ensure integrity and fairness to the public, no Casino should be allowed to post anything that would cause uncertainty instead of clarity. To improve clarity, the player should be allowed to reasonably rely on the Legend posted at the table as the game rules, as they placed their bets accordingly.
These factors led the appellate judge to conclude that the rules that governed these parties were the rules posted at the table, which gave the Plaintiff a 1000:1 payout, rather than the official rules that would only offer a 100:1 payout. “Under the circumstances of this case, the only way that integrity and fairness can be achieved is to allow the trial judgment to stand.”
Even though this case did not deal with the reverse situation (ie: where the Official Rules of the Game are more favourable to the player than the table Legend), I suspect that the takeaway from this case is that in the event of ambiguity between the official Rules of the Game and the Table Legend, the result most favourable outcome for the player prevails: to me that would be the only way “to ensure integrity and fairness to the public.” This case, however, seems to suggest that gambling venues could “save” themselves by simply placing a small footnote on the table Legend to warn players that the official rules prevail: this will become the norm and claims like this will be stymied.
Dunbar et al v. Ontario Gaming West GTA Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 1096
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2022/2022onsc1096/2022onsc1096.html