Games of Skill and Chance in Canada By Michael D. Lipton, Q.C. & Kevin Weber Introduction Betting and gaming operations are illegal in Canada. The combined effect of sections 197 to 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code (the “Code”) has the effect of making any for-profit gaming or betting enterprise illegal, doing so in language broad enough to capture almost any activity in which people pay money for a chance to win a greater value than they stake. The casinos, slots and other gambling activities licensed by the provinces of Canada exist as a result of explicit exceptions created by the various provisions of section 207 of the Code. Then there are the “games” played for a chance to win valuable items, including the ubiquitous promotional contests that are a regular part of many marketing plans. The Code contains no explicit exemption allowing these games to operate. Their right to exist has been carved out of real and perceived “gaps” in the scope of activities covered by sections 197 to 206 of the Code. This paper will canvass in detail the sections of the Code applicable to “games,” and the way contests of various sorts theoretically exempt themselves from prosecution by the addition of a “skill-testing question” and a “free-entry alternative.” Gaming Generally “Gaming” is a very different activity from “betting.” “Betting” means backing one's forecast of the outcome of any external event by offering to forfeit money or articles of value to one who maintains the opposite forecast, and who backs his opinion by a corresponding offer. It is the staking of money or other value on the event of a doubtful issue. The payment of money for the right to participate in an event is not a “bet,” even where the entry monies form a prize pool to be paid out to winning players.[1] Gaming, on the other hand, “means playing a game, whether of chance or skill, for stakes hazarded by the players.”[2] The distinction between games of skill, games of chance and games of mixed skill and chance directly affects the applicability of two sections of the Code. Some of the provisions of the Code only apply to games of pure chance. Others apply to games of mixed skill and chance. Some have made the mistake of believing that games of pure skill are exempt from the Code. In fact, one provision of the Code has been held to apply to activities regardless of whether they are games of chance, mixed skill and chance, or pure skill. (1) Games of Pure Chance, Mixed Skill and Chance and Pure Skill Subsections 206(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) render illegal activities related to lotteries and games of pure chance. While the words “mode of chance” do not appear in ss. 206(1)(d) as they do in ss. 206(1)(a), (b) and (c), case law restricts the application of ss. 206(1)(d) to games of pure chance.[3] By adding an element of skill to a game, a contest will be protected from scrutiny under these provisions.[4] Therefore, games that would otherwise constitute games of pure chance are usually transformed into games of mixed skill and chance by requiring winners to answer a “skill-testing question” before claiming prizes. Section 201 and section 206(1) (f) can be breached where the games involved depend on a mixture of chance and skill. Section 206(1)(f) of the Code explicitly applies to disposing of “goods, wares or merchandise” by games of chance or mixed skill and chance, where the contestant or competitor pays money or other valuable consideration to participate in the game. The common gaming house provisions of the Code (section 201) apply to places kept for the purpose of playing games for gain. “Games” in this context means games of chance or games of mixed skill and chance. Accordingly, there is no prohibition against keeping or being found in a “gaming house” that hosts only games of pure skill. Section 206(1) (e) is directed at “pyramid schemes,” but the section is not limited to those fact situations.[5] It is broadly-worded enough to capture games played for consideration and with the expectation of receiving money or valuable security in return. The essential element of the offence is participation in a “scheme” whereby a person pays money or valuable security into the scheme, and becomes entitled to a larger sum of money or valuable security than he paid by reason of other persons' payment into or obligation to pay into the scheme. The scheme itself must be looked at to determine if the subsection has been contravened. If the scheme contemplates that a participant is eventually to receive a larger sum than he paid in, as a result of the payments of new recruits, then the subsection is contravened.[6] It does not matter whether the scheme involved a game, lottery or other contest, nor does it matter what degree of skill or luck is involved.[7] This is accordingly the only provision that could conceivably be applied to even a game of pure skill. Free Entry Alternative Skill-testing questions do not affect liability under sections 201, 206(1) (e) or 206(1) (f), as these sections apply to games of mixed skill and chance. Therefore, game and contest organizers must take steps to remove the element of requiring consideration for playing the games. A “free entry alternative,” is made available: a method whereby players may in limited circumstances enter without payment, with the same chance to win prizes as paying players. (2) The Definition of “Skill” and the Effectiveness of the Skill-Testing Question “Skill” Defined In the case of R. v. Quiz It Trivia Inc.,[8] the distributors of a scratch and win ticket were convicted of keeping a common gaming house. In this particular instance, it was agreed that it was a game and it did involve skill. The only issue to determine was whether it was a game of pure skill, or whether chance was part of the game. The court determined the game, which involved both “scratch and win” elements and trivia answering elements, to be a game of “mixed skill and chance.”
The Court considered several cases for the primary purposes of defining the terms “skill” and “chance.” The Court followed the definition of “chance” as adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ross v. The Queen.[9] Reference was made therein to several decisions that employed various definitions of skill, which are found in an English dictionary. The preferred definition adopted therein was one used by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in the matter of The Queen v. Robert Simpson (Regina) Ltd.,[10] which is drawn from The New Oxford Dictionary as follows: “capable of accomplishing something with precision and certainty; cleverness and expertness.” The process of determining whether a game is purely a game of “skill,” “mixed chance and skill” or “pure chance” is relatively simple. Every game must be analyzed individually. The set-up, rules, method of play and the level of physical and mental dexterity required to win will be examined. The object of this process is to determine if playing the game involves a “systematic resort to chance” or if winning can be accomplished with “precision and certainty.” Games of Pure Skill Often, a game or contest organizer will attempt to avoid the need for a free-entry alternative by basing the game or contest on “pure skill.” This is not a fruitful area of endeavor, because as we have stated, section 206(1) (e) can be applied to games of pure skill. Accordingly, where the activity involved is a game (involving a person playing a game for stakes, as opposed to wagering on the outcome of an external event), liability may not be avoided by eliminating all elements of chance from the game.[11] It is important to realize that having a game of “pure skill” does not immunize an operation from prosecution, as the effort required to make a game one of “pure skill” is considerable. All elements of chance must be eliminated to succeed. Any element of chance inherent to a game, however small, makes it one of mixed chance and skill, though the element of skill may heavily outweigh the element of chance. In some jurisdictions, a “predominance” test is applied to determining whether a game is one of “pure skill”: if the game is predominantly determined by the exercise of skill, it is a game of skill. The predominance test was rejected in Canada by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ross v. The Queen. The issue in that case was whether the game of contract bridge was a game of skill, or of chance, or of mixed chance and skill. The Court held contract bridge to be a game of mixed chance and skill: “A brief description of the game of bridge, more precisely contract bridge, was given in evidence. It is sufficient to say that it shows that the cards in the hands of each of the four players are determined by chance but that afterwards the outcome of the game depends in substantial measure upon the skill of the players in bidding and in playing their hands…The opinion of an expert bridge player heard as the only witness was that, on the whole, the element of skill outweighs the element of chance. Appellants' contention is that this takes the game of bridge out of the category of games of mixed chance and skill.”[12] . . . “It is clear that Parliament intended to avoid the uncertainties involved in determining what is the dominant element and deliberately chose to include in the definition of “game” all mixed games as well as games of chance.” [13] The Supreme Court accepted that there is an element of chance in every game, even obvious games of “skill” such as chess, tennis and golf. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court stated that in this context, the Code is only concerned where the element of “chance” is a systemic, internally-generated part of the game: “To support their contention that in classifying games, one has to ascertain what is the dominant element, appellants contend that there is an element of chance in every game, even in those that are admittedly games of skill such as chess, tennis and golf. This argument overlooks the principle that statutes must be read in accordance with the usual and accepted meaning of the words used. It is undoubtedly true that there are chances involved in any human activity and that, statistically, results are never predictable with complete certainty. However, when the statute speaks of chance as opposed to skill, it is clear that it contemplates not the unpredictables that may occasionally defeat skill but the systematic resort to chance involved in many games such as the throw of dice, the deal of cards.” [14] The courts accordingly treat chance differently when it is introduced only by factors external to the game (i.e. the unpredictable effect of wind in a game of golf). Such chance will be disregarded, and thus under the Code chess, tennis and golf are treated as games of pure skill. Where the element of chance is introduced by the rules of the game itself, the Code treats the game as being “of mixed chance and skill.” Any game involving a random deal of cards necessarily involves a systemic resort to chance, introduced by the rules of the game. The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed this guiding principle recently in a case involved private use of a “crane game,” a machine common at fairs and exhibitions.[15] In this game, a player inserts a coin, and attempts to maneuver a crane to grasp a prize in a pit, and bring that prize to a slot that will deliver it to the player. These games are legal at fairs, due to a specific exemption the Code provides for games operated at fairs (ss. 206(3)), but in this case it was being used outside of a fair or exhibition. While the game was found to be mostly chance, with a relatively small amount of skill involved, the test in Ross was applied by the court without alteration. This was a decision of the highest Ontario court, and from it one can surmise that the interpretation of these provisions has not changed measurably since the Ross decision. Skill-Testing Questions Activities relating to contests and games of chance with no appreciable skill component are offences under ss. 206(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Code. The case law provides little guidance as to what physical or mental feats constitute a viable skill component.[16] For this reason, contest organizers usually require entrants to answer a mathematical skill-testing question before claiming any prizes; this insulates the contest from ss. 206(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Code by transforming it into a game of mixed skill and chance, as discussed hereinafter. Case law supports the notion that the addition of such a question transforms a game of pure chance into one of “mixed skill and chance.” There is some support for the proposition that consideration is required before a scheme will be illegal under these provisions, and that therefore a “pure chance” game or contest is permitted provided there is no consideration. However, conservative sweepstakes promoters usually take the provisions at face value and add a skill-testing question in all cases, even where the game requires no entry fee. The traditional use of a four-part mathematical skill-testing question as the basis for immunizing games from ss. 206(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Code derives from the Canada Trust Company case, a decision of the Alberta Provincial Court.[17] The acceptable level of difficulty that such a mathematical question should present in order to constitute a true test of skill has not been tested by case law. The question approved in the Canada Trust Company case was: Step 1: multiply 228 times 21; Step 2: add 10,824 to the answer from Step 1; Step 3: divide the answer from Step 2 by 12; and Step 4: subtract 1121 from the answer to Step 3.
In contrast to the above, many skill-testing questions used in Canada today have dropped several digits, leading to questions such as “5 + 10 X 2-10=?” Whether that comprises a sufficient test of skill remains to be seen. Those who wish to proceed prudently stay with questions involving double or triple digit numbers.
As well, many contests and games present skill-testing questions to players in a manner that could eliminate all elements of skill from answering the question. Ideally, the question should be presented to the contestant in person, and upon seeing it for the first time he or she should answer it in front of a representative of the game organizer, using only paper and pencil or pen, and perhaps with a time limit. Many skill-testing questions are not administered in this way, leaving open the question of whether players answered the question themselves, unaided. A mathematical question answered using a calculator could not be said to add a true element of skill to a game: see R. v. Robert Simpson (Regina) Ltd.,[18] where a retail store made its intended “skill-testing question” too simple, and was convicted under the predecessor to subsection 206(1)(d) of the Code as a result. See also R. v. Quiz It Trivia Inc.,[19] where the skill component of a game was held to be “questionable” because players could take as much time or consult with anyone they wished before answering the skill-testing question. (3) The Free Entry Alternative The question of whether an activity constitutes “gaming,” “betting” or “wagering” that is prohibited by the Code is determined not by the provisions of the Code, but by the jurisprudence under the Code. The jurisprudence provides that the activity must provide both the organizer of the gaming, betting or wagering enterprise and its participants with the chance to either win or lose money or money's worth based upon the outcome of the gaming, betting or wagering. This was set forth by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Irwin[20], and by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. DiPietro[21]. If the best that a player can hope to win as a result of the outcome of the gaming, betting or wagering is a token of victory that has equal or less monetary value than his entry fee, there is no prospect of winning money or money's worth. This principle applies to both “gaming” and “betting” offences, because under common law “wagering is an essential element of gaming,” and to constitute wagering, there must exist “the chance that the participants could stand to win or lose money or money's worth.”[22] DiPietro cited with approval the 1903 English case of Lockwood v. Cooper,[23] to the effect that to constitute gaming, “each of the players must have a chance of losing as well as winning.” Similarly, in The Queen v. Kent,[24] the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the courts may properly look to the actual use of the gaming device in order to determine whether it is a machine used solely for gambling or for amusement purposes only. It was further stated therein that both gambling and gaming must involve both of the following concepts: 1) the chance of gain; and 2) the risk of loss. The underlying principle arising from the cases that have dealt with this issue express the judicial concept that if money is paid to play and there is no win, a loss has been suffered. However, that a player in fact wins does not by itself eliminate the “risk of loss.” Similarly, it can be argued that the free-entry alternative removes a game or contest from the ambit of section 206(1) (e). That section prohibits a “scheme…by which any person, on payment of any sum of money…shall become entitled…to receive…a larger sum of money…by reason of the fact that other persons have paid…” With the provision of a free-entry alternative, payment of a sum of money by players is no longer a necessary step to their becoming entitled to sums of money, and the game or contest no longer qualifies as a “scheme” prohibited by this section. Crafting an Effective Free Entry Alternative As discussed, the addition of an element of skill by requiring the answer of a properly-administered “skill-testing question” saves a game from the ambit of ss. 206(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Code. Subsections 206(1) (e) and (f) remain, however, as does section 201 (“keeping a common gaming house”). Furthermore, if the proposed activity involves “betting or wagering,” the provisions of sections 202 and 203 remain sources of potential criminal liability. “Sweepstakes” is the name commonly used to describe promotional tie-ins attached to widely-known products, such as the “look under the cap” promotions run by soft drink companies, or the instant prizes offered by McDonalds. In a sweepstakes context, it is well accepted that the purchase of a product or service to enter the sweepstakes, even if only the regular price is paid, is regarded as providing consideration for the “game.”[25] Attention is therefore paid to removing the “consideration” element of the game, bet or wager, by permitting entry by some means other than a purchase, payment or exchange of valuable items. A “free entry alternative” may require a single hand-drawn facsimile of a Universal Price Code, or multiple hand-drawn facsimiles. Further barriers may require a 100-word essay on a (generally product-related) topic. Sometimes free entrants are required to send in their requests for free entry paraphernalia (e.g., a randomly selected scratch and win card) along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Commonly there is a limit as to the number of free entries that can be requested (i.e. one request per day, or one per household). Some U.S. states have explicit law that provides guidance as to how much cost and effort can be loaded onto a “free entry alternative.” In Canada, such outright guidance is lacking, and game organizers must decide how much risk they are willing to undertake in that regard. Though no Canadian statute or case law speaks to this point, a free entry alternative offered in Canada should adhere to the “equal dignity rule” established in U.S. law to be safe: obtaining a free entry should not be unduly onerous on the public, and free entries should have an equal chance as paid entries of winning equally valuable prizes, taken from the same prize pool as that available to paid entries. In R. v. Friskie,[26] the Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected a free-entry alternative in a pyramid scheme as “essentially a sham.” The court determined that people who opted for the free-entry alternative would be inconvenienced and at a disadvantage as compared to paying participants. The Provincial Court did not state how the existence of a “realistic” free-entry alternative might have changed the outcome of the case, and therefore it remains unclear whether a free-entry alternative necessarily immunizes schemes from conviction under section 206(1)(e). The Zellers Case A 1999 decision of an administrative body, Quebec's Régie des alcohols, des courses et des jeux (the “Régie”), considered a promotional contest offered by the Zellers department store that involved both a skill-testing question and a free entry alternative. Initially, the Régie told Zellers to cancel the contest, feeling that it constituted an illegal fundraising lottery.
The contest was sponsored in conjunction with a registered charity, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and structured as follows: if a person obtained $25 worth of pledges in the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Walkathon, Zellers would give them one entry into a drawing. The contest provided for a free entry alternative, which required the contestant to write an essay of at least 100 words explaining why he or she wanted to go into space.
First prize was a trip to space, valued at approximately $150,000. Ten secondary prizes of telescopes, valued at $500 each, would also be drawn.
The free entry alternative was mentioned in the material advertising the promotional contest, albeit in small characters. The “careful and meticulous reader” would detect the possibility of an alternate mode of participation, which he would then be able to find in the rules and regulations. The official rules and regulations ascribe equal prominence to both methods of entry, free and for consideration.
Those who win the draw had to answer a skill-testing question, to be asked of them in person at a Zellers store. Zellers assured the Régie that the question would be sufficiently difficult to ensure that the contest had a real skill component.
An official with the Régie initially refused to register the contest and ordered it to be immediately cancelled. It indicated that that the contest could not be registered as a “publicity contest” because the promotion was tantamount to fundraising through a lottery, which would require a lottery licence. Zellers was further told that it would not be able to obtain a lottery licence, because it was a for-profit organization.
The matter went to a hearing before the Régie. Ultimately, since the promotion was not a scheme of pure chance (due to the inclusion of the skill-testing question), and because there was a means of entering without payment or other valuable consideration, the Régie held that it could not find “conclusively” that the promotion was a lottery within Section 206 of the Criminal Code. It therefore acceded to the promotion being treated and registered as a publicity contest.
In the absence of any Canadian court decisions assessing the legal effect of free-entry alternatives, and very few cases reviewing the requirements of skill-testing questions, the Zellers decision provides the best recent guidance available. It emphasizes that a skill-testing question should be sufficiently difficult to ensure that the contest has a genuine element of skill, and that a free entry alternative must be clearly indicated as available to the public in the contest's advertising material and rules, and it must be obvious and unequivocal for the contestants. Failing that, the Régie held that it would not represent a real alternative to a payment of money or other valuable consideration. The Règie did not express any “equal dignity” concerns about Zellers requiring persons wishing to enter for free to write a 100-word essay as a non-monetary “cost” of that free entry. (4) Other Methods of Avoiding Section 206(1) (e) Gaming cannot be said to exist where players have no risk of real loss. Notwithstanding the payment of money or its equivalent to play, if there is no risk to the player losing money or money's worth, the element of gaming, betting or wagering is eliminated. If tickets of redemption are issued to players for every play, regardless of the outcome of play, this would have the effect of reimbursing the player with something of value equal to the cost of playing, thereby eliminating the issue surrounding the concept of the “risk of loss.” Since the elimination of the risk of loss must be actual, not just perceived, the tickets or tokens issued in this manner must, at a minimum, be redeemable for merchandise with a retail value equal to or greater than the cost of play. In addition, the device must have security sufficient to prevent any tampering or adjustments being made to the payout. In the appeal case in R. v. Friskie,[27] the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal identified the “schemes” prohibited by ss. 206(1)(e) as recruitment schemes “which will inevitably lead to loss by some who have paid into [them] by way of contribution in expectation of receiving a larger amount from amounts paid in by subsequent recruits.”[28] If a participant in a scheme gains entry into a game or contest by purchasing an item of intrinsic value to the participant, such as an item for the participant's personal use, and pays no more than that item's intrinsic value, it cannot be said that any participants have an inevitable risk of loss. However, the purchase will be deemed a sham unless it can be shown that the item purchased had real value and use to the participant. It must be something more than a mask for a desire to receive a larger sum from monies paid in by other participants.[29] In R. v. Lerner,[30] the Supreme Court of Canada refused to convict the accused in circumstances where participants in his “scheme” were paid money from company funds, and not from monies paid into the scheme by subsequent participants. As well, in Lerner the items purchased by participants as their entry “fee” into the scheme could be refunded at full cost in the event participants were unable to sell them. Accordingly, there were two reasons why section 206(1) (e) did not apply: (1) the money paid to participants did not derive from subsequent participants, and (2) there was no risk of loss to the participants. All monies paid would be returned to them, regardless of the outcome of their participation in the “scheme.” As well, it has been suggested that section 206(1) (e) does not apply to games where players stand to win goods or merchandise, as opposed to money or valuable security. Accordingly, contests that give away merchandise, goods or services would not violate section 206(1) (e),[31] though they could violate section 206(1) (f) if they involved games of mixed chance and skill. One might also consider actually eliminating either organizers' or contestants' chance of profiting from the enterprise. In both Irwin and DiPietro, the “house” did not require the payment of an entry fee for the playing of the game. As a result, the acquittals in those cases were based on the rationale that the players did not stand to lose money or money's worth. However, both Irwin[32] and DiPietro[33] state that players must “have a chance of both winning and losing money or money's worth” in order for a gaming offence to be made out. The organizer of a gaming, betting or wagering enterprise can seek to immunize their activities from successful prosecution by eliminating players' chance to win money or money's worth. The players would be competing for the sake of competing, which would not constitute “gaming” under the Code. Taking this step will in many circumstances be impractical. A requirement that players pay an entry fee to participate in the gaming, betting or wagering enterprise would not represent “putting up a stake” on the outcome of the game, if the player cannot by the outcome of the game possibly recoup that stake. The situation would be analogous to that described in the concluding passage in DiPietro: “People did not go to the DiPietros' to win drinks but to play cards. Playing cards was not a means to an end, winning money or money's-worth, but an end in itself. The whole evening of playing cards was more in the nature of amusement than in the nature of betting and gaming as defined by common law and by the Criminal Code.”[34] In this connection, the Code exempts gaming devices that dispense only free games as prizes, such as pinball machines. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held such prizes to be of such “an unsubstantial nature that they cannot be classed as a real stake or prize so as to impart the character of wagering to the game.” Conclusion Canadian courts are likely to take a common sense approach when dealing with contests and games that are part of commercial promotional activities. The gaming provisions of the Criminal Code were mainly drafted to curb illegal gambling and protect against “loss”, not to burden modern commercial marketing activities. In most cases, the provision of a free entry alternative should satisfy the basic purpose of the statute in eliminating the factor of contestants being forced to make a purchase or otherwise pay consideration as a condition of entry. The more closely a contest or game resembles classic “gambling” activity, for instance contests that use machinery resembling slot machines or video lottery terminals, the more care should be taken in ensuring that: (1) “skill-testing questions” are applied in a stringent fashion, requiring prospective winners to answer sufficiently difficult mathematical questions in a controlled environment to ensure that they have answered the question unaided; and (2) “free-entry alternatives” are provided that carefully adheres to the “equal dignity” principle, such that disparities in treatment between paying and non-paying entrants are minimized to the greatest extent possible. [1] R. v. Lebansky, [1940] 3 W.W.R. 374, affirmed [1941] 2 D.L.R. 380 (Man. C.A.) [2] R. v. Gardiner (1971), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 463 (Alta. C.A.) [3] Roe v. R. (1949), 94 C.C.C. 273 (S.C.C.) [4] Roe, supra note 3 [5] R. v. Friskie, [2001] S.J. No. 565 (Sask. Prov. Ct.) at para. 6; affirmed [2003] S.J. No. 533 (Sask. C.A.) at para. 17 [6] R. v. Mackenzie (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 528 (Ont. C.A.) [7] R. v. Dream Home Contests (Edmonton) Ltd., [1960] S.C.R. 414 (S.C.C.) [8] [1989] O.J. No. 3050 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) [QL] [9] (1968), 70 D.L.R. (2d) 606 (S.C.C.) at 617 – 20 [10] (1958), 121 C.C.C. 39 (Sask. C.A.) [11] In 2004, a “pure skill” essay-writing competition that was to award a prize of real estate was shut down after the Alberta Department of Justice advised that it was contrary to the Code. The operators of the contest had believed that it was exempt because the contest was one of pure skill. See “Essay Contest Shut Down in Canada,” Realty Times, April 8, 2004. [12] Ross, supra note 7 at 617 [13] Ross, supra note 7 at 620 [14] Ross, supra note 7 at 619 [15] R. v. Balance Group International Trading Ltd., [2002] O.J. No. 94 at paragraph 3. [16] i.e. Estimating the number of beans in a jar is an adequate test of skill (R. v. Dodds (1884), 4 O.R. 390 (C.A.)), but estimating the number of passengers to be carried on a railway is not (R. v. Irwin, (1928) 4 D.L.R. 625 (Alta. C.A.)). [17] R. v. Canada Trust Company, Alta. Prov. Ct., July 5, 1984, Plomp Prov. J. [18] Supra note 10 [19] Supra note 8 at paragraphs 20 – 22 [20] (1982), 39 O.R. (2d) 314 (Ont. C.A.) [21] (1986), 26 D.L.R. (4th) 412 (S.C.C.) [22] DiPietro, supra note 13 at 416 – 17 [23] [1903] 2 K.B. 428 (H.L.) [24] (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 345 (S.C.C.) [25] R. v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1915), 25 D.L.R. 396 (Alta. S.C.) [26] [2001], S.J. No. 565 (Sask. Prov. Ct.) at paras. 36 – 38 [27] [2003] S.J. No. 533 (Sask. C.A.) [28] Friskie, supra note 28 at paragraph 31 [29] Friskie, supra note 28 at paragraphs 38 – 42 [30] [1963] S.C.R. 625 [31] Reference re Voluntary Tax Plan of City of Montreal (1968), 6 D.L.R. (3d) 411; affirmed 10 D.L.R. (3d) 315 (Que. C.A.), in which one judge of a panel of five suggested that a scheme that paid winners in silver ingots would not violate ss. 206(1) (e) of the Code. [32] Irwin, supra note 12 at 326 [33] DiPietro, supra note 13 at 421 [34] DiPietro, supra note 13 at 422 |
|---|