- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 30 Jan 2003 · read from the court record
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 2003 SCC 3; SCC file 28416
- 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
After the town of Winkler voted in a plebiscite to ban video lottery terminals, Manitoba's Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act gave the vote legal effect and the Siemens family, whose hotel lost its VLT revenue, challenged the Act. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld it in 2003 as valid provincial legislation regulating gaming (property and civil rights, local matters) that did not infringe the Charter: there is no constitutional right to operate VLTs and the economic loss did not engage s. 7. The case is the authority for provinces' and municipalities' power to remove gambling machines.
What this case is about
Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3 (SCC file 28416), is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on a Manitoba law that removed video lottery terminals (VLTs) from the town of Winkler after a local vote. The Siemens family, who owned a Winkler hotel with VLTs, challenged the law.
The town had voted in a plebiscite to ban VLTs, and the Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act gave that vote legal effect.
The claimants argued that the Act breached the division of powers and Charter sections 2(b), 6, 7 and 15. The case belongs with Licensing and Administrative Court Cases, where operators and licence holders challenge the rules that govern them.
The case went through the Court of Queen's Bench (CI-99-01-14717, 8 September 2000) and the Court of Appeal (AI00-30-04743, 13 December 2000) before it reached the Supreme Court.
Who is covered
The claimants were Siemens and others, owners of the Winkler hotel, and the defendant was the Attorney General of Manitoba. It was not a class action.
The ruling affects the power of provinces and municipalities to remove gambling machines, and it applies across Canada as Supreme Court authority. Other Canadian cases are listed on Gambling Lawsuits in Canada.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The claimants sought to overturn a law, not to recover money from a fund, and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
The record shows no settlement, claim form or administrator.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 31 October 2002 and gave judgment from the bench, with written reasons on 30 January 2003. The status is judgment, and the appeal was dismissed unanimously.
The Court upheld the Act as valid provincial legislation regulating gaming, within property and civil rights and local matters. It held that the Act did not infringe the Charter: there is no constitutional right to operate VLTs, and the economic loss did not engage section 7.
As of 14 November 2026 no further step is recorded.
Why it matters
The ruling is the Canadian authority for a province or municipality removing gambling machines. A local vote can be given legal effect, and the loss of machine revenue does not by itself create a constitutional claim.
Similar challenges by operators against regulators are collected under operators against regulators and states.
Related cases
- GL-CA-0036, Atlantic Lottery Corporation Inc. v. Babstock: a Canadian case in the addiction and duty of care category (status: dismissed).
- GL-CA-0038, R. v. Furtney: a Canadian licensing and administrative case (status: judgment).
Questions people ask
Can a town vote to remove VLTs?
In this case the Supreme Court upheld a Manitoba law that gave a town's plebiscite on VLTs legal effect. It held the Act valid provincial legislation regulating gaming.
Did the hotel owners get compensation for lost VLT revenue?
No. The Court held that the economic loss did not engage section 7 of the Charter, and it dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondents.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Siemens and others, owners of a Winkler hotel with VLTs
| Defendants | Attorney General of Manitoba |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 30 Jan 2003 | 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 2003 SCC 3 (CanLII URL follows from the citation) | canlii.org | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| SCC file 28416 David Albert Siemens, et al. v. Attorney General of Manitoba, et al.: Court of Queen's Bench CI-99-01-14717 (8 September 2000), Court of Appeal AI00-30-04743 (13 December 2000); heard 31 October 2002 with judgment from the bench, written reasons 30 January 2003; dismissed with costs to the respondents | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Newfoundland VLT class action struck by the Supreme Court | Supreme Court of Canada (from the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador) | Dismissed |
| Supreme Court upholds provincial bingo licence conditions | 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.