Quebec Court of Appeal — Judicial Review Powers over a Private Entity in Gaming Matters

In a unanimous decision rendered on February 17, 2026, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in favour of our clients, Mr. Barry Alfred and Mr. Stanley Myiow, dismissed the appeal of the Kahnawà:ke Gaming Commission, and confirmed that the Quebec Superior Court has the authority to review or quash decisions issued by a private entity, including one established under a regulatory framework entirely governed by Indigenous law. 

The appellant, the Kahnawà:ke Gaming Commission (KGC), is an entity created under the Kahnawà:ke Gaming Law, tasked with administering and regulating gaming, including the issuance, suspension, and revocation of licenses. 

The respondents held licences for both poker rooms and electronic gaming devices. 

• In March 2024, the KGC suspended these licenses and invalidated the one relating to the electronic gaming devices. 

• In May 2024, the respondents filed an application for judicial review of the KGC’s decisions, arguing, among other things, that the Commission had violated the law, its duty to act in good faith, and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 

• In July 2024, the KGC filed a preliminary objection arguing that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the respondents’ application or grant the remedies sought. After this argument was dismissed at first instance, the issue was brought again before the Court of Appeal. 

On the merits, the Court of Appeal addressed a question of interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure: section 529, paragraph 1(2) C.C.P. must be read in harmony with section 34 C.C.P. and the overall structure of the Code, which extends the Superior Court’s general judicial review powers to individuals, groups, and other private entities, including private entities governed by Indigenous law. 

The Court concluded that a restrictive reading would produce an arbitrary and “absurd” distinction, allowing certain orders to target private entities while shielding their decisions from judicial review. The Court favored a contextual interpretation that ensures the internal coherence of the Code. 

This decision sets an important precedent, as it clarifies the Superior Court’s authority to review decisions of a private entity established under Indigenous law. 

The Woods team representing the respondents in this case is composed of Sebastian L. Pyzik, Emily Martin, and Charbel G. Abi-Saad. 

To view the decision, click here.