Why the OLG reference needs a separate evidence basis
A directory's scope can include exceptions described in its own notes. Preserve that distinction instead of forcing every service into one category.
The distinction that matters
The iGaming Ontario directory explains the scope of the operators it lists and separately identifies OLG's basis. A data model should therefore retain the source's classification. A missing ordinary directory row cannot be used to contradict an explicit exception in that same source.
A worked example
Imagine a table with two columns: 'listed destination in snapshot' and 'separate basis stated by source'. If the second applies, moving the record into the first column makes the dataset simpler but less accurate. The correct output tells the reader which basis was consulted and when, without inventing a common licence label.
Your next steps
- Read the notes above and below a directory, not only its rows.
- Keep exceptions associated with the exact source wording.
- Record a separate basis where the evidence requires one.
- Recheck the source when preparing a new release.
Where this answer stops
This is an explanation of source scope, not a complete account of Canadian gambling law. It does not extend an Ontario record to another province or establish the current availability of any particular product.
Sources & reading
Primary references support the factual context below. Explanations, worked examples and calculations are original Northline analysis. Read how we handle evidence.
- iGaming Ontario — regulated market directory
Primary directory. Its displayed snapshot date is historical. A reading date is not a fresh confirmation of every entry. OLG is described under a separate basis. Accessed ; source dated .
An editorial review date is not a new policy effective date. Always check the current source for operator-specific conditions.
Suggest a correction