- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 20 Jul 2000 · read from the court record
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 2000 SCC 37; SCC file 26165
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Ontario agreed that the profits of Casino Rama, opened in 1996 on the Mnjikaning (Rama) reserve, would go to a First Nations Fund for registered bands. Non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations argued their exclusion breached s. 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal in 2000: the Fund was an ameliorative programme targeting band communities and the exclusion did not demean the claimants' dignity. The decision underpins the Casino Rama and later OLG revenue-sharing arrangements litigated in OFNLP v. OLG.
What this case is about
Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37 (SCC file 26165), is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on who may share the profits of a casino. Robert Lovelace and others, from non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations, challenged the Crown in right of Ontario.
Ontario had agreed that the profits of Casino Rama, opened in 1996 on the Mnjikaning (Rama) reserve, would go to a First Nations Fund for registered bands. The claimants argued that leaving them out breached the equality guarantee in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case is one of the licensing and administrative court cases that test how governments structure gambling revenue.
Who is covered
The ruling concerns Aboriginal communities in Ontario that are not registered bands, and Métis organisations, against the registered bands that receive the Fund. The Chiefs of Ontario intervened on the band side.
It is a constitutional challenge, not a class action. For other Canadian matters, see gambling lawsuits in Canada.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The claimants sought access to a revenue-sharing programme, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, so no money was awarded to them or to any player.
No fund, claim form or administrator exists, and no costs were ordered.
What the court decided
The Court dismissed the appeal unanimously on 20 July 2000, with no order as to costs. The case came up from an Ontario Court (General Division) order of 23 July 1996 and a Court of Appeal decision of 5 June 1997 (file C25391). The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 7 December 1999.
The reasoning was that the Fund is an ameliorative programme aimed at band communities, and that excluding the claimants did not demean their dignity. On that basis the exclusion did not breach section 15.
As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment. This is a decided matter.
Why it matters
The decision underpins the Casino Rama and later Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation revenue-sharing arrangements, which were litigated again in Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. OLG. It shows how a court treats a gambling-revenue program set up for a defined group.
For the full list of cases against the province, see the page on Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario lawsuits.
Questions people ask
What did Lovelace v. Ontario decide?
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the First Nations Fund for registered bands did not breach section 15 of the Charter. It dismissed the appeal on 20 July 2000.
Who received the Casino Rama profits?
Under the arrangement, Casino Rama profits went to a First Nations Fund for registered bands. The claimants, non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations, were excluded.
Related cases
- Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation: a later dispute over Ontario gaming revenue sharing.
- R. v. Pamajewon: a related Canadian decision.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Robert Lovelace and others (non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations)
| Defendants | Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Chiefs of Ontario (intervening on the band side) |
|---|---|
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 Jul 2000 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
2 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: scc-csc.ca
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| neutral citation 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII URL follows from the citation) | canlii.org | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| SCC file 26165 Robert Lovelace (Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies), et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al.: Ontario Court (General Division) 23 July 1996 (files 9910/96, 10039/96), Court of Appeal C25391 5 June 1997; heard 7 December 1999; judgment 20 July 2000, dismissed, no order as to costs | scc-csc.ca | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| First Nations casino revenue-sharing arbitration v. OLG | Court of Appeal for Ontario (appeal from arbitration award via Superior Court) | Judgment entered |
| No Aboriginal right to regulate high-stakes gaming | Supreme Court of Canada | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.