Editorial policy

Our source hierarchy

For facts that matter, we prefer primary sources. Current laws and age rules come from official provincial and government information. Operator terms come from the operator's own published pages. Help services and self-exclusion details come from the organizations that run them. We treat secondary summaries as a starting point, not as proof, and we go back to the source before we publish a claim.

Our evidence standard

We record a source and a checked date for every material claim about offers, licences, eligibility, payments, payout timing, tax and age. We label an operator-stated fact separately from a first-hand observation. Where we have not verified something, we leave it out rather than fill the gap with a guess. That is why parts of this preview show a neutral prompt instead of a specific figure.

The ranking process

Rankings follow the criteria on our How We Rank page. We do not present a Recommended label or an editor's choice unless the order and the evidence support it. We do not create aggregate ratings we cannot defend, and we do not invent test results.

Commercial separation

Commercial relationships are disclosed on our Advertising Disclosure page. Compensation does not buy a claim or a fact. The method we describe is the method we apply.

Authorship

Editorial content on this preview is attributed to Evan Calder, Casino Content Reviewer. The copy never claims that our reviewer personally tested, audited or verified any operator. A real replacement who has not tested them either should keep that same wording.

Updates and review schedule

When the site is live, we plan to check volatile offers regularly and run a broader editorial review on a schedule. We only show an updated date after a real review, and we do not roll dates forward automatically. When something changes or turns out to be wrong, we correct it and keep a record through our Corrections process.