Ontario’s regulated online poker market is facing a liquidity test. On October 14, NSUS managing director Sarne Lightman warned that ring-fenced player pools could push more players toward offshore sites.

The warning came one week after the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in a case that could determine whether Ontario players may legally compete against international opponents in peer-to-peer games such as online poker.

The Court has not issued a ruling.

Why poker needs scale

Poker differs from slots and many sports-betting products. Players need enough opponents online at the same time to support larger tournaments, more cash games and a wider range of betting levels.

Lightman said Ontario’s restricted market has reduced tournament prize pools and left some game types unavailable. He argued that recreational players are affected most because tables can become thin outside peak hours.

NSUS says even a shared Ontario and Alberta pool would remain too small to compete with global offshore networks.

That is an industry position, not a finding by a regulator or the Supreme Court. NSUS owns GGPoker and operates GGPoker.ca in Ontario, giving the company a direct commercial interest in the outcome.

A small slice of a huge Ontario market

iGaming Ontario’s August 2026 market report recorded about C$122 million in peer-to-peer wagers. That was just over 1% of the province’s C$9.740 billion in total wagering for the reported period.

  • Peer-to-peer wagers: about C$122 million
  • Total Ontario wagering: C$9.740 billion
  • Peer-to-peer share: just over 1%

The figures cover operators working under agreements with iGaming Ontario. They do not include OLG’s online gaming offering or pari-mutuel horse-racing wagers. iGaming Ontario says the numbers are unaudited and subject to adjustment.

The percentage is small, but the policy question is larger. A market can produce substantial wagering while still failing to provide the player density needed for deep tournaments and active tables.

What the Supreme Court is deciding

Case 42141, Atlantic Lottery Corporation et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario, concerns the legal reach of Ontario’s online gaming model.

Ontario argues that players on provincially regulated sites should be able to enter international liquidity pools while the province continues to conduct and manage the gaming activity within Ontario.

The Atlantic Lottery Corporation, British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation and Loto-Québec challenge that interpretation.

The Attorney General of Alberta, the Canadian Gaming Association, Flutter Entertainment and NSUS participated as interveners. The hearing took place on October 7, 2026. The Court reserved its decision without announcing a timetable.

Why Alberta matters

Alberta’s regulated iGaming market officially launched on July 13, 2026. The Alberta iGaming Corporation conducts and manages the market, while Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis regulates it.

That structure gives Alberta a direct stake in the national debate, but it does not automatically create a shared poker network with Ontario. Any liquidity arrangement would need to fit the legal and regulatory framework in both provinces.

NSUS says a two-province pool would still lack the scale of international networks. The company also warned that players who leave regulated platforms for offshore poker may lose protections linked to regulated markets, including:

  • Anti-money-laundering controls
  • Safer-gambling tools
  • Identity checks
  • Formal dispute processes

The decision that could reshape the market

A ruling for Ontario could open a path toward international player pools, subject to regulatory conditions and operator approvals. A ruling against Ontario could preserve the current ring-fenced approach and leave provincial operators searching for other ways to keep poker tables and tournaments active.

For players, the practical issue is straightforward: bigger pools can mean more active games and larger events. The regulatory challenge is just as clear. Cross-border participation must not weaken oversight of accounts, payments, game integrity, privacy or player protection.

The Supreme Court’s decision will set the legal boundary, but operators and regulators will still have to determine how any permitted network works in practice.