The method

How we verify what is on these pages, and what we could not

A review is worth whatever its method is worth, so here is ours in full: what we read, where we read it, what we were unable to read from outside Canada, and why there is a licence number on every card instead of a rating.

A review is worth whatever its method is worth

The useful question about any casino page is not whether its author is honest but whether his method can be repeated by somebody who distrusts him, and that is a question about documents rather than about character. A method that rests on reading a register can be checked by reading the same register; a method that rests on "our experts" cannot be checked at all, and the difference is the whole of what this page exists to set out.

A method described in detail, including the parts of it that are thin, is worth more to a reader than a verdict he has to take on trust (and it is cheaper to check). That approach costs us the two things the segment usually leads with (a score out of five, and a bonus figure in large type), and in our view the trade is worth making.

What follows is the whole of it: four classes of document, one declared relationship, one list of things that could not be read from here, and a rule for what happens when two sources disagree. The rule is that a disagreement gets published rather than resolved; where two figures cannot be chosen between, neither of them is printed.

A reader who wants the short version can take this one sentence away: everything on a card is either a quotation from a document with a date on it, or it is marked as "not established".

The objection, which belongs before the method

The obvious objection is that this site is paid by the casinos it describes, and a method presented before that objection has been answered reads like a brochure. So the answer comes first, in the second section rather than in a footnote.

The links here are commercial, they carry the "sponsored" attribute that a search engine reads, and every button on the site sits above a line saying so (the same line, on every page). Payment arrives when a reader opens an account, and it arrives whether or not the account turns out to suit him (there is no clawback for a reader who leaves). That is a conflict worth naming rather than managing quietly.

What the money does change is real and worth stating plainly: it decides which operators came under examination at all. This is not a list of the best casinos in the world. It is a list of the houses that accept Canadian players, that run a programme reachable from here, and whose licence turned up in a register ("iGaming Ontario", the "MGA" verification tool, the Alderney list of licence holders).

What the payment cannot reach is the licence column, and the reason is structural rather than moral (a register is not ours to edit). An authority, a number and a company name are either on a public register or they are not, and the register sits one click from the card, so that no payment can move a line in somebody else's database.

That is the test to apply to a page like this one, and it takes under a minute: pick a card, open the register, and see whether the three fields match, starting with the card you distrust most.

The four documents, and what each of them settles

The first document is the register kept by the authority itself (the only one of the four that is a public record). For Ontario that is the operator directory of "iGaming Ontario", which carried forty-nine companies and eighty-four sites on the date it declares ("accurate as of September 1, 2026"), and for Alberta it is the registered sites list of "Alberta iGaming Corporation", which carried fifty-one sites when we counted them one by one on 21 October 2026 (the page publishes no date of its own, and its counter reads zero).

That difference between the two registers is itself worth a sentence, because publishing a single date for both would be inaccurate for one of them. Ontario's figure carries the date of the source and Alberta's carries the date of our reading, and the two province pages say which of the two they are using.

The second document is the operator's own published terms, and that is where a "wagering" requirement (the amount that must be staked before a withdrawal), a "max cashout" (the ceiling on what an offer can pay out) and the "excluded deposit methods" all live. The third is the landing page that a commercial link actually opens, and it settles a question no press release can: whether the page is written for Canada at all, which a path containing "/ca/" or "en-CA" answers in the address bar.

The fourth is the "link sheet" that an affiliate manager circulates, which is where the link itself and the type of offer come from (the sheet used here is dated 14 October 2026). A sheet is a commercial document rather than a regulatory one, so what it can support is the description of a destination and never a claim about an operator's conduct.

We read that sheet critically, and it has not always survived the reading: four of its Canadian links point at the wrong entity or carry the wrong language (two of them would send an Ontario player to an entity with no Ontario registration), and not one of those four appears anywhere on this site!

What we could not read, which matters as much

The brands that run on the "Games Global" platform answer a request from outside Canada with a refusal (an "HTTP 403", the server declining by location), so their lobbies, their terms pages and their payment lists could not be read from this desk at all. That is a large hole in a site about Canadian casinos (the "Palace" brands are a dozen of the names in the index), and papering over it would have been easy enough.

Instead the holes are marked where they fall; a marked hole costs a reader less than a filled one. The currency a ledger settles in, the withdrawal window and the methods available to a Canadian account are recorded as unverified for those houses, and the four boxes on each card carry a state rather than a guess ("read at the source", "partly", "no", "not established").

A marked gap is one you can go and fill for yourself in a minute, while a gap filled in with a plausible sentence is one you cannot even see from where you are standing. That asymmetry (visible absence against invisible invention) is the reason the boxes exist in the form they do.

There is one more thing that has not been done here, and it is the largest of them. We have opened no account anywhere, which means every statement on this site about how an operator behaves after a deposit comes from a document rather than from our own experience.

• 

  Jackpot City Casino

  Alderney AGCC cat. 1 · Kahnawake 00892

  Open Jackpot City Casino

  Commercial link · 19+ (18+ in AB, MB, QC) · operator’s terms apply · checked 21.10.2026

• 

  Zodiac Casino

  MGA · Kahnawake · AGCO in Ontario

  Open Zodiac Casino

  Commercial link · 19+ (18+ in AB, MB, QC) · operator’s terms apply · checked 21.10.2026

• 

  Betway Canada

  MGA/CRP/130/2006 · Betway Limited

  Open Betway Canada

  Commercial link · 19+ (18+ in AB, MB, QC) · operator’s terms apply · checked 21.10.2026

Why a licence number sits where a rating would

On the twentieth of October 2026 we read sixteen comparison sites written for Canadian players, end to end, and the figures from that reading decided the shape of our cards. Not one of the sixteen published a licence number; two of fourteen named the licensing authority inside the operator card; none showed the logo of a regulator, and three of sixteen carried a tool of any kind.

The space those sites give to a score out of five is therefore the most valuable empty space in the segment. A licence number is exactly the thing that belongs in it (a fact, where an opinion used to be). A "rating" is a number a reader must take on trust, while a licence number is one he can look up in a public register in about a minute.

The reading also turned up something worth not repeating. On one of those sites the scores did not decrease down the ranking at all (4.2, then two blanks, then 3.5, 3.4, 3.7, 3.9, 4), which means the score was not what produced the order, and on another the same operator carried two different scores in two parts of one page.

Half of the sixteen replaced the disclosure of a commercial relationship with a claim of "independence", which, given that the links are tracked, is the one thing on a page of that kind that cannot be true. Declaring the relationship and letting a reader discount the source accordingly is the better of the two options, since a discounted source is still a usable one.

So the cards carry the authority, the number, the company and the date, and the only thing a reader is asked to take on trust is that the copying was done correctly.

What would change our mind, which is a short list

A method is only honest if it says in advance what would overturn it, so here is that list (short, and complete). If an operator's register entry disappears the card goes with it, and if a regulator publishes an action against a brand that action goes onto the card whether or not it concerns Canadian players (three brands in the index carry a "cease-and-desist" from the Michigan Gaming Control Board dated 14 August 2025, and it sits on their rows).

If the owner of this site opens an account at one of these houses and records what happened, that will be said here, dated, and attributed. Until it happens there is no "review" on this site in the sense the word usually carries, and our pages about operators are descriptions rather than verdicts!

And if you find a licence number here that does not match the register, the contact page has the address, because that is the only error on these pages that would be ours rather than somebody else's. Everything else is a document with a date on it. You are welcome to go and read the documents instead of this page.

By the Canadian Dollar Casinos editorial team · Last updated October 2026 · Online since 2012