In Burrell v. Metropolitan Entertainment Group, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal considered whether casino operators and public regulators owed either a statutory of common law duty of care to a gambling addicts.
The appellant became addicted to gambling and from between 1995 and 2003 he lost approximately $500,000 at the respondent’s casino. In 2004, at the request of the appellant, the respondent served the appellant with notice to stay away from the casino pursuant to s. 3(1) (e) of the Protection of Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 363. This section makes it an offence to enter the premises when prohibited by notice. The notice excluding the appellant was renewed every six months.
Seeking to recover his losses prior to the 2004 notice, the appellant argued that the respondents had a duty of care to not permit him to gamble, either statutorily or at common law. He argued that provisions in the Gaming Control Act, as well as Casino Regulations section 20(1), since repealed, which required casino operators to "implement policies and procedures" to identify and exclude gambling addicts, gave rise to such a duty.
Fichaud JA., writing for the Court, held that a casino operator did not owe a general common law duty of care to gamblers. However, once the casino undertook to exclude the appellant or if there was individually targeted promotion it created exceptional circumstances that could give rise to a duty of care. On the facts of the case, the appellant did not have a valid claim in negligence; his losses had pre-dated his exclusion from the casino, thereby lacking sufficient proximity to the duty of care owed, and even if general casino advertising to the public gave rise to a prima facie duty of care to all gamblers, the decision to allow casino gambling was a governmental policy choice, not an operational choice, and therefore did not satisfy the second stage of Anns.
December 2, 2011
Link to Decision
Heather Palin & Kai Sheffield
*
No comments:
Post a Comment