Case Comment on Bérubé v. Rational Entertainment Ltd.

Abstract

Acurious case came out of the Ontario courts last fall that may be a good omen for offshore private operators offering Internet gaming services to Canadian players. If the approach of other appellate courts is the same as in this case, operators could find themselves the beneficiaries of a general hands-off approach by Canadian courts based upon a lack of jurisdiction and a disclaimer of liability for illegal use of online gaming software. On Oct. 7, 2010, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) released its decision in Berube v. Rational Entertainment Ltd. Clotilde Berube was the plaintiff. She brought an action against the owner of PokerStars , among others, for money lost playing poker on (the Site) and for damages. The plaintiff’s claim—filed in summer 2009—proceeded quickly through the courts, even by Small Claims Court standards; in the fall of 2010, Ms. Berube’s appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Court. While Berube is a lower-court judgment (even at the Divisional Court level), with limited precedential value, and although it is only a part of a larger picture as far as the enforceability of Internet gaming debts in Canada, the decision signals a reluctance by the Ontario courts to interfere with private Internet gaming obligations, even where the operation of the games themselves are in a grey area under applicable Canadian law. While operators will no doubt cheer this development, players may not universally welcome this deference to contractual terms. OVERVIEW