Comments on the Joe Treyes Case

This morning I received an email from Joe Treyes himself asking me for my promised comments on the The Patient Gambler article posted on October 31 2004 Here is my view on the issue.

Firstly Joe's gambling behaviour would have appeared problematic well before he was self-excluded, and at this early stage the Mohawk or Woodbine staff should have acted.

However once the self-excusion deed was signed, the racinos had a clear responsibility to act. Signing that deed is an expression that the gambler needs assistance to prevent them from gambling further, for if they could stop by themselves they would without having to sign anything. The failure of the venues to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the agreement amounts to a breach of contract, and a failure to meet a clear duty of care to its patrons.

In fact by assisting Joe to return to the gambling floor, they are actually encouraging Joe to gamble, especially in a state where they know that his judgement is impaired by his illness. Gambling is supposed to be an informed choice - but would you put an admitted problem gambler who has acknowledged that he cannot control his gambling, and you as the operator also know he suffers from an illness that impairs his judgement even further back in a situation where he is surrounded by gambling options. This is not only reckless, it seems to me to border on negligent.

I am not saying that this is what happens in every case of self-exclusion, but in this case it seems that the venues had every opportunity to meet their obligations but not only failed to do so, it appears they knowingly exacerbated the problem.

Gambling is a activity that requires informed choice and consent. In an impaired state such as suffering from parkinsons, I don't believe it is clear whether consent can be given.

I think it is clear that the operator failed in their duty, and if such a significant case happened here I would recommend discussing the situation with the Advocate for Responsible Gambling, the regulator and even potentially a lawyer to work out if their are any options for recourse.

This is not the typical non-detection of a self-excluded patron, this is where a venue knowingly encouraged a self-excuded patron with impaired judgement to gamble. If the venue does not have a demonstrable duty of care in this case, I don't know when they do.

GG