Supreme Court upholds provincial bingo licence conditions: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

R. v. Furtney is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, SCC file 21759, reported at [1991] 3 S.C.R. 89. It is one of the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases and a criminal case in form, because the accused were charged under the Criminal Code.

The accused were Philip Furtney, Scott Furtney, Diane Roy, Hugh Chamney and Diamond Bingo Inc. They were charged with counselling charitable bingo licensees to violate the terms and conditions of their Ontario bingo licences.

Their argument was constitutional. They said Parliament could not let provincial licence conditions define a crime, because that would hand criminal law to the provinces. The claim concerned the validity of Criminal Code s. 207(1)(b) and of Ontario's bingo licence terms as delegated criminal law.

Who is covered

The decision concerns the five accused and the Ontario licensing scheme. It addresses how federal criminal law and provincial licensing fit together, so it also bears on other provincially licensed lotteries.

The attorneys general of Canada, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland intervened, which shows the reach of the question. The national overview is on Gambling Lawsuits in Canada.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a criminal appeal about the validity of a licensing scheme, with no fund, no damages and no claim process (CAD 0).

The Supreme Court made no order as to costs. There is nothing for players to claim.

What the court decided

The appeal came from the Court of Appeal for Ontario (decision 821/88, 15 November 1989). The Supreme Court heard it on 20 June 1991 and gave judgment on 26 September 1991, dismissing the appeal.

The Court held that s. 207 of the Criminal Code validly exempts provincially licensed lotteries. It held that the provincial conditions are regulation of gaming, not criminal law. Parliament may make the application of its prohibition depend on provincial licensing.

As of 14 November 2026 the case is recorded as a judgment, and the record shows no later proceedings in the same file.

Why it matters

Furtney is the first case in every modern Canadian gambling judgment. Later decisions build on it, from Earth Future Lottery to the Mohawk and iGaming Ontario decisions.

The pattern is a recurring one: operators challenge how provincial licensing sits beside the federal Criminal Code. More cases of this kind are collected under operators against regulators and states.

Questions people ask

What did R. v. Furtney decide?

The Supreme Court held on 26 September 1991 that Criminal Code s. 207 validly exempts provincially licensed lotteries and that provincial conditions are gaming regulation, not criminal law.

Who were the accused in Furtney?

Philip Furtney, Scott Furtney, Diane Roy, Hugh Chamney and Diamond Bingo Inc., charged with counselling bingo licensees to violate their licence terms.

Is Furtney still cited?

The record describes it as the first case in every modern Canadian gambling judgment, including Earth Future Lottery and the Mohawk and iGaming Ontario decisions.

Related cases

• R. v. Pamajewon: a Supreme Court judgment in the same line of Canadian gambling cases, status judgment.
• Reference re Earth Future Lottery: a later reference case on provincial lottery authority, status judgment.
• Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke v. iGaming Ontario: a recent challenge to Ontario's iGaming regime, status dismissed.

GamblingLawsuits.org is a free, non-profit reference. It is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.