What I am asking from Playground Poker Club and WPT.
Two separate sets of requests. The first is procedural — written information the patron is normally entitled to when a private establishment exercises its door discretion. The second is substantive — what a reasonable resolution to this specific matter would look like, given what the record now contains and does not contain.
See also: FAQ — frequently asked questions about this record
If any of the four procedural items below had been provided in writing at any point between March 2024 and October 2024 — in response to any of the 11 executive-level written requests, or as a contemporaneous communication of the ban at the time it was placed — this website would not exist.
Four written items from Playground.
- 01
The specific cause of the ban, identifying the rule, policy, or conduct said to have been breached.
SENT - 02
The date and nature of the underlying incident, and the identity and role of the individual who made the decision.
SENT - 03
Any contemporaneous documentation relied upon — incident report, witness statements, video review notes.
SENT - 04
A description of any internal review or appeal mechanism available to a banned patron, and the procedure for requesting such a review.
SENT
The matter is already in front of the Kahnawà:ke Gaming Commission. The formal complaint was filed on 2026-04-14 at 08:25 UTC — the same morning as the Playground request above — and acknowledged by the Commission the same afternoon. The KGC track and the Playground written request are running in parallel, not in sequence.
The silence counter above grows by one every day Playground does not provide a written response on the merits. It is not a deadline — it is the record itself. The following additional formal paths remain available depending on what the evidence supports:
- Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec (CDPDJ) — to the extent the exclusion engages rights protected under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, including sections 10 and 15 concerning, respectively, the enumerated grounds of discrimination and the right of access to places ordinarily open to the public.
- Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) — in respect of commercial electronic messages received post-exclusion, under Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation (S.C. 2010, c. 23).
Three items from the World Poker Tour.
- 01
An independent review by WPT compliance of whether a licensed partner venue’s exclusion of a patron, without any written statement of cause, is consistent with WPT’s standards for sanctioned events and with the accessibility expectations WPT holds itself out as upholding.
SENT - 02
Written acknowledgement that the October 2024 escalation to the named executives was received, reviewed, and either actioned or formally declined — so that the record is clear.
SENT - 03
Consideration of what, if anything, WPT is prepared to do to ensure that sanctioned events at partner venues remain accessible to patrons who have not been provided with documented cause for exclusion.
SENT
WPT is asked here because Playground remains a sanctioned partner venue of WPT-branded events in Canada. The accessibility of WPT-sanctioned tournament series at Playground falls within the scope of partnership standards WPT holds itself out as enforcing. As of this update, WPT has not responded in writing to the October 2024 escalation. The 2026-04-14 follow-up is the latest written entry in that pattern. A sanctioning body that brands a venue for tournament play is accountable for a written response when a documented patron raises an access issue at that venue in writing.
The substantive remedy,
separately from the procedure.
The procedural items above are the information a patron is entitled to. The items below are what a reasonable resolution to this specific matter looks like, now that the absence of supporting documentation for the ban is itself part of the written record.
The remedy is proportionate to each party's role. Playground Poker Club owns the ban and therefore owes the core remedy. The World Poker Tour owns the sanctioning framework under which the excluded events are branded and therefore owes the standards-level remedy. The two lists below do not have the same shape because the two roles are not the same.
From Playground Poker Club.
- 01
Written acknowledgment from the Playground Poker Club executive team that no contemporaneous on-site incident, no rule citation, no documented conduct, and no video or witness record of any kind justified the silent placement of the ban on my player card between April and October 2024.
- 02
Reversal of the ban, effective immediately, and restoration of full patron standing — including eligibility to register for sanctioned tournament events hosted at the venue by WPT, WSOP, and any other tour that uses Playground as a partner location.
- 03
A written apology, signed at the executive level, addressed to the patron, acknowledging the specific governance failures on the record: that a customer-service complaint about food service in the smoking room was routed to a manager in a department with no structural connection to the complaint; that the ban was placed silently and communicated only on a drive-in visit months later; that seven months of executive silence preceded the discovery; and that the only cause-attribution I have received from the venue was an informal, verbally-delivered remark by a manager while escorting me off the property.
- 04
A documented change to the venue's internal escalation procedures such that no single mid-level manager can place a property-wide ban on a patron without (a) contemporaneous written notice to the patron at the time the ban is placed, (b) documentation of the specific conduct said to justify it, and (c) a defined, written internal appeal mechanism the patron may use. This item is for the next patron, not for me.
From the World Poker Tour.
- 01
Written acknowledgment from WPT compliance that the October 2024 escalation to the named executives and the April 14, 2026 follow-up were received, reviewed, and either actioned or formally declined — so that the written record on this matter is clear either way, rather than being composed entirely of unanswered outgoing correspondence.
- 02
A written WPT partner-venue standard addressed to licensed partner venues hosting WPT-sanctioned events, stating that exclusion of a patron from a WPT-sanctioned event at such a venue must either be supported by documented cause made available to the patron on request, or lifted for the duration of the sanctioned event. This item is for the next patron, not only for me.
- 03
Confirmation by WPT compliance that, to the extent its review finds the current exclusion inconsistent with the standards WPT holds itself out as enforcing at sanctioned events, WPT will raise the matter with Playground leadership in the ordinary course of the continuing sanctioning relationship. This item does not ask WPT to override a venue's door discretion; it asks WPT to exercise the governance role a sanctioning body has with its partner venues.
None of the items above are unusual as remedies in consumer-facing disputes with licensed venues, nor in the governance of sanctioning-body relationships with partner venues. None of them require Playground or WPT to concede motive, intent, or any internal characterization of their own personnel. All of them are about the verifiable written record and about the governance posture going forward. In my view, they are the minimum that would make this right.