Adam Goldenberg.

Thank you, Chief Justice, and good morning or good afternoon, Justices.

I wanna pick up with that last question from Justice Kasirer, which echoes questions asked earlier today by Justice Karraker Sanos, by the Chief Justice, by Justice Rowe.

The fundamental element of those questions is what happens if, in other jurisdictions, the regulators with whom Ontario has partnered in the scheme that it's proposed don't live up to their agreements, allow for fraud, or allow minors to participate, or other words.

The answer to that concern is that so long as what Ontario is doing in Ontario is sufficient to protect Ontarians from any harms that may arise from the conduct and management of lottery schemes in other jurisdictions.

Ontario falls within the safe harbor, as Mr.

Hunter put it, that Section 207 sub 1, sub a affords.

So I don't understand your statement that it's not possible to have different sets of rules governing a game.

Adam Goldenberg.

Thank you, Chief Justice, and good morning or good afternoon, Justices.

I wanna pick up with that last question from Justice Kasirer, which echoes questions asked earlier today by Justice Karraker-Sannis, by the Chief Justice, by Justice Rowe.

The fundamental element of those questions is: What happens if, in other jurisdictions, the regulators with whom Ontario has partnered in the scheme that it's proposed don't live up to their agreements, allow for fraud, or allow minors to participate, or other words? The answer to that concern is that so long as what Ontario is doing in Ontario is sufficient to protect Ontarians from any harms that may arise from the conduct and management of lottery schemes in other jurisdictions, Ontario falls within the safe harbor, as Mr.

Hunter put it, that Section 207 Sub 1, Sub a affords.

Now, then the question becomes: How much is enough? How much does Ontario have to do in order to protect the public interest and the public in Ontario? The answer to that question is ultimately one of policy, to go to comments that Justice Rowe has made throughout today's hearing.

Whether Ontario, in the exercise of its power to conduct and manage lottery schemes in Ontario, has done enough to guard against harms that may arise because of the conduct and management of lottery schemes elsewhere is not a legal question.

So I don't understand your statement that it's not possible to have different sets of rules governing a game.

Adam Goldenberg.

Thank you, Chief Justice, and good morning or good afternoon, Justices.

I wanna pick up with that last question from Justice Kasirer, which echoes questions asked earlier today by Justice Karokitsanos, by the Chief Justice, by Justice Rowe.

The fundamental element of those questions is, what happens if, in other jurisdictions, the regulators with whom Ontario has partnered in the scheme that it's proposed don't live up to their agreements, allow for fraud, or allow minors to participate, or other words? The answer to that concern is that so long as what Ontario is doing in Ontario is sufficient to protect Ontarians from any harms that may arise from the conduct and management of lottery schemes in other jurisdictions, Ontario falls within the safe harbor, as Mr.

Hunter put it, that Section 207 Sub 1, Sub A affords.

Now, then the question becomes, how much is enough? How much does Ontario have to do in order to protect the public interest and the public in Ontario? The answer to that question is ultimately one of policy, to go to comments that Justice Rowe has made throughout today's hearing.

Whether Ontario, in the exercise of its power to conduct and manage lottery schemes in Ontario, has done enough to guard against harms that may arise because of the conduct and management of lottery schemes elsewhere, is not a legal question.

So I don't understand your statement that it's not possible to have different sets of rules governing the game.