|From:||Jason Neyers <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||14/08/2015 19:11:22 UTC|
|Subject:||ODG: Interesting Case?|
Some of you will be interested in looking at Paton Estate v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission 2015 ONSC 3130 (if only for examination material). The facts of the case were that X (a problem gambler) defrauded the plaintiffs and then lost the money obtained at a casino owned by the Ontario government (OLGC). The plaintiff’s sued the OLGC in negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt and the OLGC moved to strike out all the claims for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The court held that all the claims should be struck. The claim in negligence failed since the defendant owed no duty to the problem gambler and therefore could not owe a duty to his or her victims. The court stated that the claim in conversion failed since OLGC was bona fide purchaser for value without notice and that this was a complete defence to the tort. The claim in UE failed since the contract between OLGC and the gambler provided a juristic reason for the defendant’s enrichment. And finally, the claim in knowing receipt failed since Casinos have no general obligation to investigate the source of a gambler’s funds.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale was not cited.
-- Jason Neyers Professor of Law Faculty of Law Western University N6A 3K7 (519) 661-2111 x. 88435