As provinces take increasingly divergent approaches to regulating online gambling, Canada’s gaming landscape is entering a period of accelerated transformation. Manitoba is pursuing a strict enforcement strategy, launching legal proceedings against offshore operator Bodog, while Alberta is moving in the opposite direction, preparing to open its market to private operators through newly introduced legislation modeled after Ontario’s regulated framework.

These contrasting developments point to a growing legal and commercial divide with significant implications for compliance, enforcement, and market access across Canada.

Manitoba’s legal challenge: Enforcement through the courts

Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries (MBLL) has filed a civil injunction in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench against Bodog, a well-known offshore gambling operator. MBLL alleges Bodog is operating without provincial authorization in violation of Manitoba’s regulatory framework and the Criminal Code of Canada.

MBLL asserts exclusive jurisdiction to conduct and manage gambling in the province, primarily through its PlayNow.com platform. Its legal action marks one of the most direct recent attempts by a Canadian province to challenge offshore gambling activity.

The case raises a key policy question: should provinces rely on legal enforcement to curb offshore gambling, or pursue market regulation and integration as Ontario has done?

It also raises compliance concerns for Canadian-based intermediaries, such as advertisers, affiliates, payment processors, and infrastructure providers, that may indirectly support unauthorized operators.

Legal basis: Section 207 of the Criminal Code

The MBLL case relies on section 207(1) of the Criminal Code, which authorizes gambling only if it is “conducted and managed” by a provincial government or its duly authorized agent. MBLL effectively argues Bodog:

  • is offering gaming services to Manitobans without provincial authorization; and
  • misleads consumers by portraying itself as legitimate.

If the court grants the injunction, MBLL could seek to block advertising, disrupt payment processing, or pursue other remedies. Enforcing such measures against offshore entities, however, may be challenging without federal coordination.

A familiar tension: Quebec’s failed site-blocking law

Manitoba’s efforts echo Quebec’s 2016 attempt to block access to unlicensed sites through Bill 74, which required internet service providers (ISPs) to filter certain gambling domains. The Quebec Court of Appeal struck the law down in Public Mobile Inc. v. AG Quebec, ruling that telecom regulation falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Though Manitoba’s case involves a civil injunction—rather than legislation—it may face similar jurisdictional and constitutional challenges, especially if enforcement relies on third parties like ISPs or payment providers.

Ontario and Alberta: Regulate and license, not litigate

While Manitoba seeks enforcement, Ontario and Alberta are charting a different course—embracing regulation and private sector participation.

Ontario’s model: Market access through compliance

Ontario launched its open iGaming market in April 2022 through iGaming Ontario (iGO), a subsidiary of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. The framework allows private operators to apply for licenses and serve the Ontario market under strict regulatory conditions.

Since its launch, iGO has reported:

  • over $2.7 billion in GDP contributions;
  • more than 15,000 full-time jobs supported across tech and gaming sectors; and
  • a significant decline in grey-market participation.

Ontario’s model has been lauded for offering both economic growth and improved consumer protections.

Alberta’s path forward: The iGaming Alberta Act (Bill 48)

In March 2025, Alberta introduced the iGaming Alberta Act (Bill 48), legislation that would establish a new Crown agent, the Alberta iGaming Corporation, responsible for managing and regulating online gambling on behalf of the province.

This follows earlier groundwork laid by Bill 16 in 2024, which amended the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act to enable future private-sector participation in online gambling.

Bill 48 marks a significant step toward a competitive, Ontario-style iGaming regime. Key features include:

  • Operational Authority: The Corporation will be authorized to develop, manage, and conduct online lottery schemes. It may do so directly or in partnership with private operators.
  • Revenue Generation: Alberta anticipates income from licensing fees, contractual arrangements with operators, and applicable taxes.
  • Responsible Gaming: The Corporation will be tasked with promoting responsible gambling and consumer protection, including mechanisms such as self-exclusion programs.
  • Interprovincial Collaboration: With ministerial approval, Alberta may enter into agreements with other provinces to jointly operate or manage online gaming schemes.

While the legislation creates a clear legal foundation, regulations governing licensing criteria, tax rates, enforcement tools, and technical standards are still forthcoming. As such, Alberta remains a developing, but strategically important, market for operators and service providers.

Read our full analysis on the iGaming Alberta Act.

The Starnet cautionary tale: Criminal risk for Canadian service providers

Although prosecutions against offshore gambling entities are rare, the Starnet Communications case from the late 1990s remains a cautionary precedent. Though licensed in Antigua, Starnet’s Canadian operations—including software development, payment processing, and customer support—led to domestic criminal charges. The company ultimately pleaded guilty and forfeited over $4 million.

This case underscores that Canadian-based businesses supporting offshore operators, even indirectly, could be exposed to liability under the Criminal Code, including:

  • Section 202(1)(b) – keeping gambling devices;
  • Section 202(1)(g) – importing gambling-related data;
  • Section 202(1)(h) – advertising unauthorized gambling; and
  • Section 206(1)(e) – operating unlicensed schemes.

Although these provisions are rarely used, their continued presence combined with renewed enforcement efforts signals potential risk for entities involved in the iGaming supply chain.

Conclusion: A fragmented, evolving legal landscape

Manitoba’s action against Bodog may define the limits of provincial authority to target offshore gambling operators, especially in the absence of federal enforcement support. Meanwhile, Alberta’s legislative reforms position it to join Ontario in offering a structured, competitive licensing regime for online gaming.

For industry players, such as operators, affiliates, or infrastructure providers, the message is clear: the regulatory environment is far from uniform. Strategic entry and continued operations in Canada requires jurisdiction-specific legal analysis, careful monitoring of licensing developments, and an understanding of federal and provincial compliance risks.