In 1973, courts found that licensed premises (bars/ restaurants) owed a duty of care to their patrons. In the original and subsequent alcohol-related cases, the courts have taken into account the fact that alcohol has dependency-forming potential, intoxicates the patron, and is sold for profit. In a gambling case, the defendant could be a customer (or “patron”) or a third party (e.g. the spouse of a patron). In applying a duty of care to a new circumstance, the court applies three criteria:

1. Is the harm reasonably foreseeable?

2. Is there a “proximal” or close relationship between the two parties?

3. Are there no over-riding policy reasons why a duty should not be found?

A 2006 study by Sasso and Kalajdzic of Sutts, Strosberg asks whether a duty of care might apply to Ontario gambling providers (http://www.gamblingresearch.org/
contentdetail.sz?cid=3144).

They argue that the foreseeability and proximity criteria could well be established in either situation, given the right case.

Gambling providers can address the risk of losing such lawsuits by implementing research-proven programs to a) identify and intercept problem gamblers within their loyalty program membership, b) prevent the onset of problem gambling in all other loyalty program members, and c) integrate treatment components into their self-exclusion programs.

Robert Simpson, CEO
Ontario Problem Gambling
Research Centre