TRENDING:

Faster Patent Examination Options Can Accelerate Gaming...
Is a Toronto casino in the near future?
Bank of America Wins Dispute with Jamestown S’Kla...
Gaming and Hospitality Practice
  • Home
  • Sample Page
  • #metoo
  • 2007 Bank Secrecy Act
  • AB40
  • AB75
  • ABA Gaming Minefield Conference
  • Alabama-Coushatta Tribe
  • Alaska Natives
  • Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission
  • Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
  • Alexander Valley Association
  • American Gaming Association
  • Aquinnah
  • Arizona
  • Arizona Department of Gaming
  • Associated Equipment Manufacturers
  • Athens Acquisition LLC
  • Auditor General of Ontario
  • Background Checks
  • Bay Mills
  • Big Fish
  • Big Lagoon Rancheria
  • Bill 4
  • Bill 74
  • Bill C-290
  • Bitcoin
  • Brenda Roubidoux Taylor
  • British Columbia
  • British Columbia Gaming Control Act
  • Bulgaria
  • Bureau of Indian Affairs
  • California
  • California Consumer Privacy Act
  • Canada
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • canadian gaming law
  • Canadian Gaming Summit
  • Carcieri Decision
  • Caribbean islands
  • Casino City Indian Gaming Industry Report
  • Casinos
  • Catawba Indian Nation of South Carolina
  • CCA 202042015
  • Chantal Cipriano
  • Cherokee Nation
  • Class II Gaming
  • CLE-rated conference
  • Coeur d'Alene Tribe
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Columbus
  • Communique
  • compliance
  • Connecticut
  • Constitutional Amendments
  • coronavirus
  • covid 19
  • Daily Fantasy Sports
  • Daniel Bergin
  • data
  • data portability
  • Delaware
  • Delaware Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
  • Dennis Whittlesey
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of the Interior
  • dfs
  • Dickinson Wright
  • Digital Currency
  • Dispute Resolution
  • DraftKings
  • Dry Creek Pomo
  • Duwamish
  • DW Gaming & Hospitality Blog
  • e-sports events
  • e-sports wagering
  • e-wagering
  • Enterprise Rancheria
  • eSports
  • eSports wagering
  • esports wagering legal risks
  • European Economic Area
  • Ex Parte Young Doctrine
  • exempted states
  • Facebook
  • Fallsview Casino
  • Fan Duel
  • federal framework
  • Federal Jurisdiction
  • Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Tribe
  • FinCEN
  • Fiscal Cliff
  • Florida
  • Forest County Potawatomi Tribe
  • Foxwoods Casino
  • Gambling Act
  • Gambling Tax
  • Gaming
  • Gaming Control Act
  • Gaming Cooperation Agreement
  • gaming devices
  • gaming enterprise districts
  • gaming industry
  • Gaming Law
  • gaming law and regulation
  • gaming licensees
  • GDPR
  • General Data Protection Regulation
  • Glendale
  • Glendale Project
  • Global Gaming Business
  • Governor Beshear
  • Governor Rick Scott
  • Governor Walker
  • Grand Canyon
  • Graton Resort & Casino
  • Greektown Casino
  • Greg Gemignani
  • Gross Gaming Revenue
  • GTA Gaming Bundles
  • Hospitality
  • Hospitality Law
  • Hosting Fee Payments
  • House of Commons
  • Hualapai Tribe
  • Hybrid Games
  • I-Gaming
  • I-Poker
  • ICE Conference
  • Idaho
  • iGaming
  • Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
  • IMGL Autumn Conference 2017
  • In-N-Out
  • Indian Gaming
  • Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
  • Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
  • Indian Tribes
  • Instant Racing Gaming Machines
  • Interactive Gaming
  • International Conference of Gambling & Risk Taking
  • International Masters of Gaming Law
  • Internet Gaming
  • Internet-related gaming legislation
  • Interstate Compacts
  • Investments
  • IRS
  • Jack Tadman
  • Jeffrey Silver
  • Jennifer Gaynor
  • Jo Ann Davidson
  • Kate Lowenhar-Fisher
  • Kenneth Ching
  • Kentucky
  • Kevin Weber
  • Las Vegas
  • Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
  • Las Vegas Sun
  • legal status
  • Legalization of sports betting
  • legalized gambling
  • Legislative
  • Licensing
  • Liquor License Act
  • Litigation
  • Live Entertainment Tax
  • London
  • Macao Gaming Summit
  • Macau
  • Madera County Superior Court
  • Magazine
  • Mashantucket Pequot Tribe
  • Mashpee Wampanoag
  • Massachusetts
  • Massachusetts Indian Land Claim Settlement Act of 1987
  • Medical Marijuana
  • Menominee Indian Tribe
  • Michael Lipton
  • Michigan
  • Michigan casinos
  • Michigan Gaming Control Board
  • Mid-America Gaming Congress
  • Mississippi Gaming Commission
  • Mobile Gaming
  • Modernization Plan
  • Modernizing gambling statutes
  • money laundering
  • Morongo Indian Reservation
  • National Council of Legislators from Gaming States
  • National Indian Gaming Association
  • National Indian Gaming Commission
  • National Labor Relations Act
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • NCLGS
  • Nevada
  • Nevada Business’s Legal Elite 2017
  • Nevada Gaming COmmission
  • Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 5.011
  • Nevada Gaming Law
  • Nevada Legislature
  • Nevada oddsmakers
  • Nevada Senate Bill 38
  • Nevada State Gaming Control Board
  • Nevada Tax Commission
  • New Jersey
  • New Jersey sports betting
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • NFL Raiders moving to Las Vegas
  • Nightclubs
  • Nooksack Tribe
  • North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians
  • Northwest Gaming Law Summit
  • Off-Reservation Gaming
  • Office of Federal Acknowledgment
  • Ohio
  • Olympics
  • Online Gaming
  • Online Gaming Law
  • Ontario
    • Ontario First Nations
  • Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
  • Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne
  • Pala Band of Mission Indians
  • pari-mutuel wagers
  • Parliament
  • PASPA
  • Patrick Sullivan
  • Personal Property Taxes
  • Peter Kulick
  • Phoenix
  • Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians
  • Privacy Law
  • Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act
  • Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA)
  • Professional Sports Wagering
  • Progressive Jackpots
  • Promotions
  • Pueblo of Pojoaque
  • Quebec
  • recreational marijuana
  • regulation on daily fantasy sports
  • Regulations
  • Restoration of America's Wire Act
  • Revenues
  • River Rock Casino
  • Robert W. Stocker II
  • Ryan Shannon
  • Sara Jodka
  • Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
  • SB22
  • SB240
  • SB266
  • SB38
  • SB40
  • SB409
  • SB443
  • SB445
  • SB9
  • Second Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Secretary of the Interior
  • Sen. John Barrasso
  • Senate Bill 240
  • Senate Bill 409
  • Senate Bill 9
  • Seneca Nation
  • Single Game Sports Betting
  • Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Slot Machines
  • Social Media
  • Sonic
  • Sovereign Immunity
  • Sports Account Wagering
  • Sports Betting
  • sports betting case
  • sports gambling
  • Sports wagering
  • state authorized marijuana sales
  • State Compacts
  • Stuart Scott
  • Summer Meeting
  • Sweepstakes
  • Taxation
  • taylor anello
  • Tennessee
  • Tennessee Legislature
  • Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians
  • Texas State Legislature
  • Texas Tigua Tribe
  • The International Masters of Gaming Law
  • Thomas McNeill
  • Timothy Wilmott
  • Tohono O'odham Nation
  • Toronto
  • Tourism
  • Trends
  • Tribal Contracts
  • Tribal Court
  • Tribal Membership
  • Tribal Payday Lenders
  • U.S. Congress
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. TAX REFORM
  • UIGEA
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Virgin Islands
  • Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
  • UNLV
  • US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • US Supreme Court
  • Velchev & Co.
  • Video Games
  • Virtual Currencies
  • Wall Street Journal
  • Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
  • Western Sky Financial
  • Wisconsin
  • Working Group on Online Gambling
  • Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma

Select Page

Québec’s Superior Court Rules that Bill 74 is Unconstitutional

Posted by Michael Lipton, Kevin Weber and Chantal Cipriano | Aug 22, 2018

In July 2018, the Superior Court of Québec held that the Québec government’s controversial attempt to force Internet service providers (“ISP”s) to block certain iGaming sites is unconstitutional.

By way of background, on May 17, 2016, the Québec government passed Bill 74, which contained Internet-censoring provisions that were unprecedented in Canada. Bill 74 included a provision modifying the Québec Consumer Protection Act that would require ISPs to block persons in Québec from accessing unlicensed iGaming websites. Bill 74 empowered the body authorized to conduct and manage gaming in Québec (commonly known as “Loto-Québec”) to draw up a list of unlicensed iGaming sites and provide the list to the provincial gaming regulator (Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux). The Régie would then send that list to ISPs operating in Québec, after which the ISPs had 30 days to block access to those websites.

A group of Canada’s largest ISPs commenced legal proceedings in July 2016 seeking a declaration from the Superior Court of Québec to the effect that the amendments to the Québec Consumer Protection Act relating to ISPs that would be affected by Bill 74 were unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect. Also in July 2016, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”) filed an application with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) objecting to the law on similar grounds. In September 2016, the CRTC temporarily suspended PIAC’s application while the constitutional issues went before the courts.

On July 24, 2018, the Superior Court of Québec ruled that the provincial rule creating mandated ISP blocking for unlicensed iGaming sites that compete with Loto-Québec is unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the province. The Court concluded that both the object and the effects of Bill 74 operate directly in two areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction: telecommunications and criminal law. The legal and practical effects of Bill 74 are outside of the scope of the provincial jurisdiction.

In his ruling, Justice Nollet cited the Telecommunications Act, which enshrines into law the concept of “net neutrality”, meaning that Internet companies should be neutral carriers of content and not favour certain sites over others, nor should they block access to certain sites. Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act states, “Except where the Commission [the CRTC] approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.” Even though the CRTC has this power, it blocks sites sparingly and almost exclusively for safety-related concerns, i.e. security breaches.

The Court’s ruling is a major loss to Loto-Québec as the Court concluded that the law was designed to prevent competitive iGaming sites from being available in the province and not to protect consumer health as Loto-Québec had suggested. This conclusion is aided by the fact that Québec’s Minister of Finance had estimated the law could have added up to $27 million per year for the provincially-owned online gaming site “Espacejeux”.

What is certain is that this decision is a blow to provincial monopolies across Canada, which seek exclusive control of iGaming in Canada under the monopoly established by the Criminal Code. The ruling has sent a message to provincial governments: attempts to instigate Internet site-blocking schemes to further a province’s goals – whether economic or otherwise – will likely be unsuccessful. Deference must be accorded to the CRTC and, given their cautious attitude towards using their designated power to block websites, it seems unlikely that a province will be successful in their attempt to do so.

Does this decision represent a crack in the provincial monopoly? Will it encourage offshore iGaming sites to continue to target Canadians? Only time will tell.

It is important to note that the Québec government has the ability to appeal this ruling, but there has been no comment on whether it intends to do so.

About the Authors:

Michael D. Lipton, Q.C., Partner, is a Gaming lawyer in the Toronto office and can be reached at 416.866.2929, mdliptonqc@dickinsonwright.com, and his biography is available here.

Kevin J. Weber, Partner, is a Gaming lawyer in the Toronto office and can be reached at 416.367.0899, kweber@dickinsonwright.com, and his biography is available here.

Chantal A. Cipriano, Associate, is a Gaming lawyer in the Toronto office and can be reached at 416.646.6864, ccipriano@dickinsonwright.com and her biography is available here.

  

Share:

PreviousOnce A “Patron,” Always A Patron?
NextIn Sports Wagering, Information is Everything!

Related Posts

Greg Gemignani Co-Authors Cover Article in Communique’s May Edition

Greg Gemignani Co-Authors Cover Article in Communique’s May Edition

May 25, 2017

SPORTS WAGERING IN YOUR STATE

SPORTS WAGERING IN YOUR STATE

May 8, 2017

National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) – Summer Meeting

National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) – Summer Meeting

May 5, 2017

IMGL MIAMI SPRING CONFERENCE

IMGL MIAMI SPRING CONFERENCE

April 20, 2017

Newsletter Subscription

Disclaimer

The Gaming and Hospitality Practice blog is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform the public of important developments within the firm and practice areas. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in this blog.

Categories

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress