Reflections on the Voluntary Self-Exclusion of Gamblers and the Law-Suits against Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Legalized gambling in Canada is governed by Provincial legislation. In Ontario, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation is responsible for all aspects of gambling in the Province. There have been a number of recent lawsuits against this Crown agency of the Government of Ontario by gamblers, most of which have been settled or otherwise resolved. A recent class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Ontario gamblers against this agency raises a number of interesting questions regarding the issue of responsibility and liability. The questions surround the issue of self-exclusionary practices of gamblers who deem themselves in need of external intervention in order interesting questions regarding the issue of responsibility and liability. The questions surround the issue to abstain from further gambling. A contract is voluntarily signed by the self-excluding gamblers whereby their further attendance at gaming venues is prevented and could be punishable by law. Where the gaming venues have failed to enforce the terms of this contract, gamblers have continued to gamble at these establishments. The class-action lawsuit stems from the grievances of these self-excluded gamblers who were not turned away. Relevant psychological theories and recent findings pertaining to gambling are reviewed and questions relevant to these grievances are discussed in favor of government responsibility and liability toward gamblers.
KeywordsProblem gambling Self-exclusion Psychological theories
- Alberta Gaming Research Institute. (2008). Gambling News.Google Scholar
- Dickerson, M., & O’Connor, J. (2006). Gambling as an addictive behaviour: impaired control, harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ferland, F., Fournier, P.-M., Ladouceur, R., Brochu, P., Bouchard, M., & Paquet, L. (2008). Consequences of pathological gambling on the gambler and his spouse. Journal of Gambling Issues, 219–229. http://www.camh.net/egambling/.
- Grinols, E. L. (2004). Gambling in America: Costs and benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hardoon, K. K., Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. (2004). Psychosocial variables associated with adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 170–179.Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Gaboury, A., Dumont, M., & Rochette, P. (1988). Gambling: Relationship between the frequency of wins and irrational thinking. Journal of Psychology, 122, 409–414.Google Scholar
- Morse, J., & Fancy, H. (2008). Class Proceedings: Peter Aubrey Dennis and Zubin Phiroze Noble vs. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. cv-08-00356378-0000.Google Scholar
- Reith, G. (2008). Reflections on responsibility. Journal of Gambling Issues, 149–155. http://www.camh.net/egambling/.
- Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self-exclusion. Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Statistics Canada. (2003). Fighting the odds: Perspectives on labour and income. [75-001-XIE]. Canada, Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
- Statistics Canada. (2007). Perspectives on labour and income (Rep. No. 75-001-XIE).Google Scholar
- Wiebe, J., Single, E., & Falkowski-Ham, A. (2001). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Ontario Canadian Centre on substance abuse. Ontario: Responsible Gambling Council.Google Scholar