The Court of Appeal of Québec has dismissed the Kahnawake Gaming Commission’s (KGC) appeal of a 2024 ruling, upholding that the provincial courts have the power to review KGC’s gaming decisions.
In a new ruling issued last week, the appeals court upheld the Superior Court of Québec‘s November 2024 decision in the case of Magic Palace casino near Montreal. The Superior Court previously determined that it has the power to put the KGC’s decision to suspend and invalidate gaming licenses held by Magic Palace under the microscope.
Magic Palace sued KGC over license suspension
The KGC is a First Nations entity run by the elected Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke (MCK) and established by the Kahnawake Gaming Law, which it says gives it the right and responsibility to grant and revoke gaming licenses under its auspices.
The KGC suspended Magic Palace’s gaming licenses in the first half of 2024 after allegations of criminal activity involving and occurring at Magic Palace. The MCK then terminated Magic Palace’s electronic gaming devices agreement, at which point the KGC declared Magic Palace’s suspended license was no longer valid.
Magic Palace’s owners, Stanley Myiow and Barry Alfred, sued in court contesting that the KGC acted unlawfully. That lawsuit will continue after the KGC’s appeal was denied.
Appeal judges back up Superior Court
The KGC argued in court that because it is a private entity that does not act under or derive its powers from a Québec statute, it is not under the authority of the Parliament of Québec and so the statute should not apply to it. The legal arguments mostly centre on a relevant section of the provincial Criminal Code, article 529.
A Superior Court judge found in November 2024 that the KGC had failed to prove that the court did not have jurisdiction. KGC appealed that decision, but on Feb. 17, the three-judge appeals panel dismissed the appeal, with two of the judges concurring with the reasoning of their colleague Frédéric Bachand.
“[KGC’s] sole contention is that the remedies sought by the respondents are unavailable — full stop — because its licensing decisions are private decisions that are outside the scope of the Superior Court’s general power of judicial review,” wrote Bachand. “It does not dispute that, should its argument fail, the merits of the case ought to be decided by the Superior Court.”
Bachand determined that the true issue was not jurisdiction, as argued by the KGC, but “one of statutory interpretation” of whether article 529 extends the Superior Court’s common law power of judicial review to incorporate purely private entities such as the commission.
Bachand agreed with the Superior Court judge’s ruling that KGC licensing decisions do fall under that remit. The appeals judge noted he could not think of a reason why the Québec code would have intended to give the Superior Court the power to direct a private entity not under the authority of Parliament to perform a particular act while at the same time denying it the power to review decisions made by the same private entities.
Barchand added that the KGC’s “narrow” interpretation of article 529 “would lead to an illogical — and thus absurd — outcome” if accepted by the court.
Canadian Gaming Business reached out to the KGC and MCK seeking comment.
Kahnawake lost Ontario iGaming challenge
This isn’t the only provincial Superior Court case that Kahnawake has been involved in. In a high-profile case in 2024, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the MCK’s legal challenge of iGaming Ontario’s online gaming and betting model.
As a result of its opposition to Ontario’s market, the MCK shut down its Mohawk Online Limited subsidiary in Ontario. In late 2024, the MCK ended its partnership with Entain on the operation of the Sports Interaction online gaming platform in Canada. The MCK said at that time it would consider other avenues to expand its online gaming footprint in Canada.
Meanwhile, the council has been part of discussions over a bill in federal Parliament that would change Canada’s Criminal Code to affirm that the governing body of a First Nation has exclusive authority to conduct, manage and regulate gaming on its lands.
The 2026 version of the Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act, S-241, has undergone some discussion in the Senate in recent weeks. The MCK opposed the previous iteration, S-268, citing concerns that it may do more harm than good and suggesting that the government has no right to weigh in on the MCK’s gaming authority. However, it reportedly supports the new version after further consultations.
