The appellants, high-stakes gamblers who lost approximately $2.1 million playing roulette, sued the casino operators and the provincial gaming regulator.
They alleged that the casino's practice of removing a 'floating ball' from the roulette wheel and calling a 'no-spin' was an unapproved rule of play, rendering the games illegal under the Criminal Code and entitling them to the return of their losses via unjust enrichment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the floating ball practice was not a rule of play requiring regulatory approval, as it did not impact the fairness or integrity of the game.
Furthermore, even if the games were illegal, the casino operators had a juristic reason for enrichment based on their reasonable reliance on the legality of the games, and the regulator owed no private duty of care to the gamblers.
