Winning $6,000 playing the slots at an Ontario casino was the worst thing that ever happened to Lisa Dickert.
"It reeled me hook, line and sinker," the 37-year-old mother of two said this week. "Until that point, I was a recreational gambler. Then I became addicted and it ruined my life."
Mrs. Dickert hit the tables at the government-owned charity casinos in Brantford and Point Edward and gambled hard. Sometimes she won, "but most times I'd lose."
In just over a year, her marriage and family were in ruins. She had become alienated from all her friends and was fired from her job at a factory where she had worked for 15 years.
Gathering her courage and the little dignity she had left, Mrs. Dickert went to the Brantford casino and signed up for a self-exclusion program that would bar her from all of the province's gambling establishments for six months. If found in any casinos or at any racetracks playing slots, security guards were to escort her out. If she continued to return, she would be charged with trespassing.
Within six weeks, she was back. And back again, and again. No one stopped her from walking into the casinos; no one questioned her presence.
On Aug. 5, 2002, after a 52-hour gambling binge at the Point Edward casino in which she neither slept nor ate properly, she drove home. She was involved in an accident and her car was destroyed.
She has not gambled since, and now she and her husband Steven have filed a $1-million lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. for not enforcing the self-exclusion order.
The lawsuit raises the issue of social responsibility. The lottery corporation and its employees "owed a duty of care" to Mrs. Dickert, argued her lawyer, Sean Dewart.
"It was reasonably foreseeable, and was in fact foreseen, that negligence on their part would harm Lisa Dickert and all of the members of her immediate family," he said.
After she signed the self-exclusion form, "no steps were taken to prevent Lisa Dickert from subsequently gambling at the casinos, and she was welcomed back by the staff, by name, when she broke down approximately four to six weeks after having signed the form and went back to the casinos," Mr. Dewart said in the statement of claim.
Mrs. Dickert was "a full-blown gambling addict," he noted. "Her addiction was or ought to have been evident to the staff of the casinos."
Joe Vecsi, director of corporate communications for the OLGC, refused to comment on the lawsuit. "It's a matter before the courts and will be explored in the court process," he said.
However, Mr. Vecsi stressed that the self-exclusion program is voluntary. Casino operators have very little recourse if a patron manages to slip by security, he said.
"What we have in place is a program that is recognized internationally to address the needs of problem gamblers," Mr. Vecsi said. "It's kind of the best-case scenario that we've implemented here. Nothing is perfect, but we do feel being voluntary the program goes a long way to address some of the issues that are out there."
But Robert Williams, a researcher with the Alberta Gaming Research Institute who has studied self-exclusion programs at 57 casinos in seven provinces, concludes: "It's a good idea, except it doesn't work. It is nothing more than window dressing and good PR [on the part of the casinos] but it is ineffective."
At any given time between 1994 and 1999, there were 2,000 people on the Ontario exclusion list, Mr. Williams estimated.
Mrs. Dickert had indulged in recreational gambling a few times before winning the $6,000, but everything changed after that, she said. She had to hit rock bottom before finally admitting she had a serious gambling problem.
"I don't drink and I've never done drugs, so I could never understand that what was happening to me was an addiction. I was in serious debt. A lot of the money I lost was meant to pay the mortgage. But the worst thing was the detrimental effect this had on my kids," she recounted, breaking into tears. "I went from being an awesome mother to being this ugly person."
Her husband told her about the self-exclusion program, and she went to the Brantford casino. "It was embarrassing going there and saying, 'I have a problem. Please help me.' "
The management had her sign an agreement barring her from the gambling establishment for six months. Two mug shots were taken. "It was humiliating," she recalled. "I felt like a criminal."
The photographs were copied and sent to all gambling establishments run by the OLGC, to be placed in binders at each establishment to alert security guards that she not be allowed into the premises.
"It didn't work," Mrs. Dickert said. "I went back tons of times and no one ever stopped me. No one ever told me, 'You've lost enough. You shouldn't be in here. You should go home.'
"The waitresses, the pit bosses, the dealers, the security guards, they all knew who I was. But they never once told me to leave."
Today, Mrs. Dickert is deeply ashamed at what she had been reduced to, and she is angry at the lottery corporation for doing next to nothing to stop her from gambling. She maintained she never sneaked into "those places wearing a wig or sunglasses. I simply walked in. They all knew me by name."
"A lot of people working at the casinos knew I was a gambling addict. They could pick out people like me so easily. But they don't do anything," she said.
Both before and after signing the self-exclusion form, Mrs. Dickert sought counselling from organizations recommended and sponsored by the lottery corporation "as being available to treat gambling addicts," her lawyer said in the lawsuit.
"The counselling and advice provided by them was completely inadequate," the statement said. "Lisa Dickert was told by both that she did not have a problem, and that if she did, it could be dealt with by ensuring that she got a good night's sleep."
Nine years after Ontario opened its first commercial casino, it now has three commercial casinos, five charity casinos and 15 slot-machine facilities at racetracks.
Across the country, commercial casinos and video-lottery terminals raked in $10.7-billion in 2001, according to Statistics Canada. Of that amount, $6-billion was profit. Those figures do not include charity casinos or those run by native reserves.
The OLGC says it spends more to combat problem gambling than any other North American jurisdiction, devoting 2 per cent of all revenue from charity casinos and racetrack slot machines to research, treatment, education and prevention programs. Last year that amounted to $22-million.
Supervisory staff in many casinos are given training in responsible gaming, to watch out for people in trouble. Posters, pamphlets and signs on slot machines provide the Ontario Problem Gambling Helpline phone number.
Mr. Vesci of the lottery corporation outlined the process when a client asks to be excluded from a casino.
When a patron "comes into one of our facilities and informs our security personnel that he or she wants to be self-excluded, our security people and casino managers sit down with the individual," Mr. Vesci said. "We explain the policy, that it applies to all of our venues for a minimum of six months.
"We then fill out and file forms and take two photos of the patron, and then we escort the patron from the property. The forms and the photos are shared with our security personnel in all of our facilities."
Should that individual attempt to enter any Ontario gaming facility during the six-month period, Mr. Vesci said, "we would have them charged with trespass and they would be banned from our gaming site for a period of one year."
"Should they come in after that if they try to come in again, then we would contact the police and they would be charged under the Provincial Offences Act [with trespassing]. There's also a possibility of extending the ban for a five-year period."
During the process, "when they're meeting with our people, they are also given material to get in touch with the problem-gambling help line that can assess them in remedying the situation," he said.
Gambling researcher Mr. Williams, an associate professor with the School of Health Sciences at the University of Alberta, said the main problem with self-exclusion programs is that only a tiny proportion of problem gamblers sign up, "about 1 per cent. Most are not aware of it because the program is not widely promoted."
"Secondly, there is no enforcement of it. There are only a few jurisdictions with penalties, but they virtually never enforce those penalties," he said.
"Each casino has a huge book with grainy pictures of self-excluded gamblers, and part-time security guards manning the doors are supposed to memorize the photos. Problem gamblers routinely report they break those self-exclusion contracts with impunity and they are virtually never caught," he noted.
Mr. Williams said the third problem is the period of exclusion is far too short to make a difference, and "in many instances you can ask to be taken off as soon as you change your mind."
However, he stressed that the idea of self-exclusion has potential if proactively applied.
"Gambling is the responsibility of the gambler. But the gaming industry has a responsibility as well. It's pretty obvious [to casino staff] who the problem gamblers are — just as it is to bartenders who the alcoholic drinkers are. But card dealers can't tell a gambler he can't play at his table even if it is obvious he is out of control."
Mr. Williams said the situation is analogous to substance abuse. "Government is more responsive when it comes to alcohol or tobacco. There are lots and lots of health messages about alcohol and tobacco use yet few public awareness campaigns on the addictiveness of gambling."
It has been almost a year since Lisa Dickert placed a bet, and she still isn't about to take odds that she'll never gamble again. At least, not just yet.
"I still need help. I need better counselling, but I'm determined to beat this addiction."
As far as the lawsuit is concerned, she wants to send the government a message. "It needs to put something in place that can really help people like me, something that is really effective and enforced."
"It's just horrible what is happening to so many people in these casinos and the government just sits back and rakes in the money while saying its not their responsibility. Well, it is."
