Canada: Ontario Court Interprets Exclusion Clause, Denies Motion for Class Certification

On March 15, 2010, Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued his decision in Dennis v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.1 Justice Cullity's decision declined to certify as a class proceeding an action brought on behalf of individuals who signed a "self-exclusion" form at an OLG gaming facility2 between December 1, 1999 and February 10, 2005. The decision offers important guidance on the interpretation and applicability of "exclusion of liability" clauses, and on the requirement in class proceedings that there be a rational connection between the class definition and the proposed common issues.


Since casino gambling was introduced in Ontario in 1994, the Province of Ontario has recognized, and adopted various measures to address, the social costs of gambling. Among those measures has been a "self-exclusion" program whereby gamblers consent to being denied entry to OLG gaming facilities. Self-exclusion is a service offered by many North American casinos. It is intended to be a self-help tool that lets patrons acknowledge and take positive steps to address problems that they may be experiencing associated with gambling.

The self-exclusion form at issue in the Dennis case stated that self-exclusion would direct OLG "to use their best efforts to deny you entry, as a service, to all of OLGC's gaming venues in the province of Ontario". The form then went on to disclaim and release any liability to OLG if the self-excluded individual continued to gamble:

The OLGC and commercial casino operators accept no responsibility, in the event you fail to comply with the ban, which you voluntarily requested.


I release and forever discharge the OLGC, and the commercial operators or any of the operator's parent companies, shareholders, subsidiaries or affiliates, or successors, as well as any and all of their directors, officers and employees, from any and all liability, causes of action, claims and demands whatsoever in the event that I fail to comply with this voluntary ban.

Peter Dennis signed a self-exclusion form on May 23, 2004. He soon returned to gambling in breach of his self-exclusion, until ultimately retaining counsel, obtaining treatment and stopping gambling in September 2007. Soon thereafter he commenced this proceeding on behalf of all individuals who had signed the same self-exclusion form. His wife was named as a plaintiff on behalf of family members of self-excluded class members.

Section 5(1) of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act3 ("CPA") sets out a five-part test that a plaintiff must meet in order to obtain certification of an action as a class proceeding: there must be (1) a valid cause of action; (2) on behalf of an identifiable class; (3) raising common issues; (4) for which a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure; and (5) the named plaintiff(s) and counsel must adequately represent the class. The test is a procedural one that asks whether the action should be converted to a class proceeding, or should remain an individual action. There is no decision on the merits of the underlying action.

Cause of Action Analysis

The first requirement for certification under the CPA is that the statement of claim must disclose a cause of action. For purposes of this analysis, the facts pleaded in the statement of claim are assumed to be true. No evidence is admissible. The test presents a low threshold which gives little or no insight into the merits of the underlying action.

Justice Cullity concluded that Dennis's Statement of Claim disclosed causes of action in contract, tort, occupier's liability and waiver of tort. The principal debate on this issue concerned the tort analysis, as the other causes of action are relatively easy to establish at the pleadings stage.

No Canadian court has ever found a duty of care to problem gamblers or self-excluded gamblers. However, as Justice Cullity recognized, "the novelty of a cause of action will not, by itself, lead to its rejection".4 Moreover, the English Court of Appeal has in one case recognized a duty of care to implement the terms of an existing self-exclusion policy,

though that case ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the betting shop's negligence did not cause the plaintiff's losses.5

Justice Cullity ultimately concluded that a duty of care could be found on two bases. First, he held that the pleadings disclosed an analogy to an existing line of cases where "governmental authorities who had undertaken a policy of road maintenance had been held to a duty of care to execute the maintenance in a non-negligent manner".6

In the alternative, Justice Cullity concluded that the Statement of Claim could also meet the test to establish a novel duty of care even if it was not analogous to a previously recognized category. The self-exclusion form and OLG's public representations could establish a relationship of proximity between OLG and self-excluded gamblers. Justice Cullity also noted that, according to the Statement of Claim, a casino was an inherently dangerous environment that could have adversely affected vulnerable individuals. Finally, he found that, at the pleadings stage, there was not enough evidence to determine that the selfexclusion program represented a government policy immune from liability in tort.

Justice Cullity's finding that a cause of action had been pleaded made his discussion of the exclusion of liability clauses in the self-exclusion form particularly significant. Justice Cullity interpreted the exclusion clauses as "excluding any legal responsibility that might otherwise arise" if the gambler breached his or her self-exclusion.7

Where an exclusion clause applies, according to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, a plaintiff can only avoid its effect if it would be unconscionable or contrary to public policy to do so.8 Justice Cullity noted that OLG was not "attempting to obtain any benefit for itself"9 by offering self-exclusion, and that according to the Statement of Claim itself, Mr. Dennis "sought to circumvent and frustrate its performance".10

In these circumstances, Justice Cullity concluded that there was "nothing unconscionable in OLGC stipulating that it would undertake to exercise its best efforts so as to assist the plaintiff and class members but only on the condition that in no circumstances would it be liable for any gambling losses incurred by them in the event that, for any reason, selfexclusion failed to achieve its intended effect".11 The lone possible exception suggested by Justice Cullity would be if a plaintiff could prove that OLG had acted in bad faith and the self-exclusion program "was mere window-dressing".12

Given that Justice Cullity could not look beyond the Statement of Claim, he was unable to make a ruling on the issues of unconscionability or public policy for the purposes of determining whether the exclusion clauses precluded the plaintiff's causes of action. However, his analysis demonstrates the difficult path that self-excluded individuals will face where an exclusion clause applies to a claim, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's Tercon decision.

Lack of Issues Common to the Proposed Class

The remainder of the elements of the test for class certification do require an evidentiary foundation. Unlike the cause of action analysis above, in analyzing proposed common issues, "evidence is required and the pleading will not be determinative on the basis of an assumption that its allegations of fact will be proven at trial".13 The plaintiffs could not meet this evidentiary burden.

Justice Cullity's decision to deny certification ultimately turned on the absence of "a rational connection between the class definition and the proposed common issues". The fundamental problem with the case was that "the claims advanced on behalf of the class members are predicated, and dependent, on their vulnerability". However, Justice Cullity concluded that not all self-excluded gamblers are vulnerable. The resulting overinclusiveness of the class definition "cannot be resolved by the use of statistical evidence",14 and would therefore require an inquiry into each class member's individual circumstances that would swamp any common issues.

This fundamental problem drove the three central findings in Justice Cullity's reasons. First, he noted that the proposed class members could not establish that they were all vulnerable simply by pleading that all class members were problem gamblers and unable to control their behaviour. The evidence offered by the plaintiff in the Dennis case did not establish that all self-excluded gamblers were necessarily vulnerable, and so individual evidence would be necessary.

Second, Mr. Dennis could not rely on statistical evidence to overcome the heterogeneity of the proposed class. While statistical evidence is frequently, and successfully, relied on by plaintiffs in proposed class proceedings to estimate damages, Justice Cullity recognized the limits of such evidence. Specifically, he held that statistical evidence "is not, in my opinion, admissible for the purpose of determining commonality of the five proposed common issues on which OLGC's liability depends. To ascribe commonality to such issues on the basis of such evidence would be to assert that OLGC's liability, or elements affecting its liability – other than proof of damages or the amount of a monetary award – can be determined on the basis of statistical probability."15

Finally, Justice Cullity considered the Court of Appeal's recent decisions16 holding that "only a finding of 'potential liability' is required before an aggregate assessment of damages can be made".17 These decisions did not, however, "alter the necessity to show that other elements of liability that are framed as common issues – such as the existence of a duty of care or a breach of duty – must have commonality".18 In this case, crucial elements of the plaintiff's claims like the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty and causation of any damages would all need to be determined on an individual basis.

Given the absence of any significant common issues, Justice Cullity concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims of proposed class members. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's characterization of the claims as "systemic", they were inherently individual in nature.

Moreover, none of the three goals of class proceedings would be served by certifying this proceeding. First, given the preponderance of individual issues, there would be no gains in judicial economy. Second, the amounts at stake are large enough that individual actions could be viable, and access to justice was therefore not an issue. Finally, OLG is already subject to persistent scrutiny and has taken significant steps to improve its self-exclusion and responsible gaming programs, rendering behaviour modification relatively unnecessary.19


Class proceedings have been an important addition to the procedural arsenal of plaintiffs since their introduction in Ontario in 1992. However, without appropriate limits, they can undermine the very goals of judicial economy that they were intended to promote. Justice Cullity's decision in Dennis recognizes and reinforces the boundaries of these limits. The decision should be of assistance to plaintiffs' counsel in contemplating future claims, and to defence counsel in defending those actions that step over the limits.


1. 2010 ONSC 1332.

2. This includes slots-at-racetrack facilities like the Woodbine Slots, community casinos like Casino Brantford, and the resort casinos in Rama, Windsor and Niagara Falls. OLG operates the slots facilities and community casinos, while the resort casinos are operated on OLG's behalf by private commercial operators.

3. S.O. 1992, c. C.6.

4. Dennis, supra note 1 at para. 82.

5. Calvert v. William Hill, [2008] E.W.H.C. 454, aff'd [2008] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1427.

6. Dennis, supra note 1 at para. 132.

7. Ibid. at para. 96.

8. Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4 at paras. 122-123.

9. Dennis, supra note 1 at para. 103.

10. Ibid. at para. 104.

11. Ibid. at para. 105.

12. Ibid. at para. 106.

13. Ibid. at para. 194.

14. Ibid. at para. 189.

15. Ibid. at para. 211.

16. Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2007 ONCA 334; Cassano v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781.

17. Dennis, supra note 1 at para. 217.

18. Ibid. at para. 218.

19. Ibid., supra note 1 at paras. 237-240.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.