Here's the case I guess its from 2013:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/62785/1/document.do
I don't know our legal system super well, I think its a supreme court judge ripping a provincial judge a new one tho:
Notwithstanding these caveats, upon reviewing the record as a whole, I have to conclude that the Applicant has made his case. The Minister’s exercise of her discretion under subsection 152(4.2) of the Act in this case lacks intelligibility and justification and, in my view, falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law
Here are the points, I numerated them, and cut some parts out from the link above. It might "seem" there is still some gray area, but this player wasn't the average player, they were likely quite organized, these points have an underlying tone that a poker player will never meet these tax playing requirements. That's how I understand the laws were written and what they mean to reflect, and as I understand it this Judge sees that, and meant to lay the debate to rest firmly:
1) The Minister in this case relied upon the fact of winning and, in effect, conducted the kind of retrospective assessment warned against by Justice Bowman in Leblanc, above, as part of the assessment of reasonable expectation of profit;
2) The Minister concludes that the Applicant had a “system” but does not provide any meaningful explanation of what this system might be. It looks as though the Applicant’s simply playing online poker on his computer on an intense and regular basis over an extended period of time is equated with a system
3)I see no analogy between a skilful pool player who systematically applied his skills to make money from inebriated opponents and anything the Applicant did in this case where, essentially, his winnings were dependent upon chance, even though he had studied, practised and improved his skills in a way that most amateur poker players do.
4)Everyone who competes in online poker wants to win and will attempt to narrow the odds in their favour in any way they can. But this does not mean they have devised a system if they do win; chance remains the predominant factor in whether they win or lose, as it did on the facts of this case
5) The method of payment used was no indicator of a “system” or a reasonable expectation of profits. Everyone who wants to pay has to set up some kind of payment system, so this cannot be an indication of running a business. Paypal accounts are used in a variety of contexts where payment is required online
6)The Applicant’s cutting back on other work and income while he won at poker is also no indicator of a system or running a business with a reasonable expectation of profit
7) The use of winnings to finance a mortgage is no indication of running a business. Winnings can be used in a constructive way.
8) There is no indication that the monitors or other equipment which the Applicant used to gamble in this case were anything special or that the Applicant had made capital investments for the purpose of running a business or earning a profit
9)The Applicant’s record keeping was minimal and entirely consistent with the need to prove the source of funds for tax purposes. They were not business records in any meaningful way, and did not even correlate to CRA’s own criteria
here are other points of concern but, generally speaking, I think this is enough to conclude that there was nothing in the Applicant’s case to set him apart from the usual enthusiastic and ever-hopeful poker player engaged in a personal endeavour