A large number has a way of ending a conversation before the useful part begins. Someone presents a record year, the room agrees that growth is good and the discussion moves on. I would rather stay with the number for another minute.
Canadian Gaming Business reported approximately C$98.3 billion in cash wagers and just over C$4 billion in non-adjusted gross gaming revenue for Ontario’s iGO-regulated market in calendar 2025. It also reported that online casino generated more than C$3.1 billion of that revenue. Those figures describe a substantial market, with casino doing much of the commercial work.
First, be precise about the number
Wagering volume is not the amount of fresh money people deposited. Money can be wagered repeatedly. Gaming revenue is a different measure again, and it is not the same thing as operator profit. Those distinctions matter whenever a headline puts a very large dollar figure next to a province’s name.
iGO’s reporting methodology explains gaming revenue as cash wagers and relevant fees less player winnings, before operating costs and other liabilities. It also distinguishes the reported market from OLG’s offering. Anyone assessing the figures should keep the definition and the reporting period attached to them.
That is a useful discipline for the industry itself. If operators want a thoughtful discussion of their contribution, they should help people understand the measures rather than allowing a favourable ambiguity to stand.
What the market is doing well
The growth is evidence of substantial activity within the regulated framework. I view the existence of a competitive, accountable market as a real achievement. People have a way to identify participating operators, and commercial activity can be discussed using a common reporting structure.
iGO’s move from quarterly to monthly reporting is particularly useful. It makes a changing market easier to observe. More frequent information gives operators, researchers and the public a better starting point for asking questions. It does not answer every question, but it improves the conversation.
There is also an opportunity in competition itself. An operator that makes account management clearer, support more useful and the product easier to understand has something meaningful to compete on. I would like to see those qualities receive as much attention as a promotional offer.
Where I would raise the standard
My first concern would be consistency. A customer should not experience a polished front door and a confusing back office. The language used in an offer should agree with the account screen. The support team should be able to explain a transaction without handing the person between departments.
My second concern would be measurement. Revenue belongs on a commercial dashboard. So do the time taken to resolve a complaint, the number of repeat contacts about the same issue and whether protective controls function as intended. A company learns what it repeatedly chooses to examine.
My third concern would be interpretation. Higher average revenue per account, for example, is not by itself proof of better customer experience or of greater harm. It is a prompt to investigate. The responsible response is to ask who is represented in the average and what else the data shows.
These are priorities I would set, not findings from a comprehensive audit of Ontario operators. Market totals cannot tell us which company has a confusing withdrawal screen or which support team is excellent. Those judgments need their own evidence.
Writing from Toronto, I see Ontario’s scale as an invitation to become more demanding about quality. The market has demonstrated that it can generate substantial activity. The next achievement should be an experience that makes that activity easier to understand, easier to oversee and more worthy of lasting trust.