This text is a translation of an article from CTV News.
“Winning the lottery should be a happy event. In this case, unfortunately, it ruined friendships,” Judge Y. Liliane Bantourakis said in her ruling, which was issued last week.
The court heard that Mandeep Singh Maan had purchased a ticket for the BC/49 draw in August 2022. At the time, he was working for a goods transport company where he and four of his colleagues – Balvinder Kaur Nagra, Sukhjinder Singh Sidhu, Binipal Singh Sanghera and Jeevan Pedan – were part of a lottery group.
“Mr. Maan did not inform his colleagues of this gain. Instead, they learned about it 11 days later, when a photo of him holding a $2 million check from BCLC was posted online,” the decision states.
“At first, the plaintiffs congratulated Mr. Maan on his victory. However, they soon began to have doubts.”
– Extract from a decision by Judge Y. Liliane Bantourakis
Two weeks after learning of Mr. Maan’s win, his colleagues filed a lawsuit, claiming that the winning ticket had been purchased for the group and that the winnings should be shared.
Mr Maan responded by claiming the ticket – and the jackpot – belonged to him.
Group ticket or individual purchase?
To determine who was entitled to the winnings, the judge had to answer a crucial question: “Was the winning ticket a group ticket or an individual purchase?”
“It depends on whether Mr. Maan received money from the group for the purchase of the winning ticket or whether he was purchasing or was required to purchase lottery tickets for the group that day,” he said. we read in the decision.
According to the judge, there was no written agreement governing the prize pool and the court heard conflicting testimony about how often the tickets were purchased, the types of tickets, the people involved and how the purchases were documented and press releases.
However, all parties agreed that participation in the group did not prevent its members from purchasing separate tickets for themselves.
Mr Maan argued in court that he did this regularly.
“Mr. Maan said he has been a committed and prolific lottery player on his own for many years, his interest having been piqued when he won a washing machine in a lottery in India several years ago. the decision, adding that Mr. Maan estimated he spent about $400 a month on tickets purchased online and in person.
Records from the gas station where Maan purchased the lucky ticket were examined by the court and the judge determined that Maan spent $12 on “a combination of BC/49 and Lotto 6/49 tickets plus Extras.”
The amount of the transaction was a key factor in the judge’s determination that the purchase was not made for the group. Available evidence showed that group purchases typically amounted to $50 and were never less than $40.
“I find that if Mr. Maan had used the group’s money or tickets, or purchased for the group, the total amount spent on Lotto Max, Lotto 6/49 and/or BC/49 tickets while he was at the Chevron station would probably have been much higher,” indicates Me Bantourakis’ decision.
No legal right
Despite this, the judge had to take into consideration another argument put forward by Mr Maan’s colleagues, namely that they were entitled to their share of the winnings.
“The plaintiffs argued in the alternative that if Mr. Maan did not use group funds for the purchase of the winning lottery ticket, he breached the agreement between them by not purchasing tickets for the group on August 15, 2022. They argue that, on this basis, they should equally share the winnings,” the decision reads.
The judge rejected this argument, finding that there was no evidence that Maan had agreed to purchase tickets for the group on the date in question or that there was a “binding” agreement that required Mr Maan or anyone else to purchase tickets regularly.
“The fact that the parties purchased lottery tickets together, even if they did so with some frequency, is not sufficient to relieve the plaintiffs of the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that they concluded with the defendant a binding oral agreement which would give them a right to the winning ticket,” reads Bantourakis’ decision.
“While plaintiffs may believe they have a moral right to a share of the winnings, they have not established a legal right. Their request is therefore rejected.”
