iGaming Ontario Withheld Problem Gambling Study Amid Concerns Over Results
Key Highlights
- iGaming Ontario withheld a commissioned problem gambling study after early findings showed higher rates than expected.
- Internal records reveal disputes over research methods, publication plans, and the handling of study data.
- Ontario’s NDP is demanding the full findings and related records as the province’s online gambling market expands.
Ontario’s online gambling regulator is under fire after a Toronto Star investigation revealed it withheld results of a study on problem gambling. Internal records obtained by the Star suggest iGaming Ontario executives were concerned about disclosing the higher-than-expected problem gambling rates.
Ontario’s Problem Gambling Study Was Never Published
Ontario was the first province to launch a privatized online gambling market in Canada in April 2022. A few months before that date, iGaming Ontario commissioned a two-year study to better understand the scope and complexity of problem gambling in the province. However, the resulting research was never published. Internal documents obtained via freedom of information requests indicate that early problem gambling estimates were higher than leaders expected, raising questions about what the public was allowed to learn.
iGaming Ontario hired the Responsible Gambling Council to carry out the study. Researchers planned to follow participants through three survey rounds, beginning in February 2022. The first round was meant to provide a starting point that later findings could be compared against as Ontario’s regulated market developed.
Following participants over a two-year period could help identify patterns, although the findings would depend on how the information was collected. Without access to the work, the public cannot examine those patterns or assess what the project found.
Internal Records Reveal Research & Publication Disputes
The internal iGaming Ontario documents obtained by the Star highlight the agency’s concerns about the online survey. Such surveys can produce higher estimates of problem gambling than other methods. Some agency leaders suggested adding telephone interviews in a later round, a change that could have complicated comparisons between the different stages of the project.
Academics Iris Balodis of McMaster University and Michael Wohl of Carleton University helped carry out the study and indicated that publishing the findings was a condition of their participation. Documents suggest they opposed changing the survey approach midway through the work. Their position adds another dimension to questions about the ethics of the responsible gambling study.
iGaming Ontario sought legal advice concerning researchers’ access to data and hired a public affairs firm for what internal notes described as “reactive messaging.” Documents also showed that work on the report was halted in September 2024, with iGaming Ontario saying the research did not meet its standard for informing policy decisions.
Political Pressure Grows as Ontario’s Gambling Market Expands
Ontario’s New Democratic Party has demanded the release of the full study, all three rounds of findings, and additional documents. It also wants details about the public relations contract. These requests focus on whether a publicly funded research effort was set aside because of methodological concerns, uncomfortable findings, or some combination of both.
The dispute comes as Ontario’s regulated gambling sector has consistently grown year-over-year. Online wagers exceeded C$82.7 billion during the 2024 to 2025 fiscal year. That figure measures betting volume, not profits or the number of people experiencing harm, and cannot independently establish whether problem gambling has increased.
Ontario has introduced a series of protection measures to help players curb problem gambling habits. In May 2026, iGaming Ontario announced the launch of BetGuard, a tool that allows players to exclude themselves from all regulated Ontario online gambling sites. But those safeguards do not answer the unanswered research questions. Publishing the methodology, findings, and reasons for withholding the report would allow the public to judge the evidence more clearly.