B.C. court decides $2M workplace lotto pool dispute

A dispute over a $2 million jackpot among members of a workplace lotto pool has been settled by B.C.’s Supreme Court.

“Winning the lottery should be a happy event. In this case, sadly, it has ruined relationships,” begins Justice Y. Liliane Bantourakis’ ruling, which was handed down last week.

The court heard Mandeep Singh Maan purchased the winning BC/49 ticket in August of 2022. At the time, he worked for a freight company where he and four of his co-workers – Balvinder Kaur Nagra, Sukhjinder Singh Sidhu, Binipal Singh Sanghera and Jeevan Pedan – were part of a lotto pool.

“(Maan) did not tell his coworkers of this good fortune. Instead, they learned of his win 11 days later when a photo of him holding a two-million-dollar BCLC cheque was posted online,” the decision said.

“Initially, the plaintiffs congratulated Mr. Maan on his win. However, they soon became suspicious.”

Two weeks after learning of Maan’s windfall, his co-workers filed a lawsuit claiming the winning ticket was purchased for the lotto pool purchase and that the winnings should be divided.

Maan responded by claiming the ticket – and the jackpot – were his alone.

Group ticket or individual purchase?

The judge, in deciding who was entitled to the winnings, had to answer one crucial question.

“Was the winning ticket a group ticket, or not? That depends on whether Mr. Maan received group money for the winning ticket purchase or was otherwise buying or required to buy lottery tickets for the group that day,” the decision says.

There was no written agreement governing the pool and the court heard conflicting testimony about how often tickets were bought, which types, who was involved, and how purchases were documented and communicated, according to the judge.

However, all of the parties agreed that participation in the pool did not preclude any its members from buying separate tickets for themselves.

This is something Maan told the court he did on a regular basis.

“Mr. Maan testified that he has been a committed and prolific lottery player on his own account for many years after having his interest piqued when he won a washing machine in a lottery in India years ago,” the decision says, adding that Maan estimated he spent about $400 per month on tickets purchased both online and in-person.

Records from the gas station where Maan bought the lucky ticket were reviewed by the court and the judge determined 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. The available evidence showed that group purchases were usually $50 and never amounted to less than $40.

“I find that if Mr. Maan had been using group money or tickets, or otherwise buying 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 likely have been significantly more,” Bantourakis’ ruling says.

No legal entitlement

Even so, the judge had to consider one more argument made by Mann’s co-workers that they were entitled to their share of the winnings.

“The plaintiffs have argued in the alternative that if Mr. Maan did not use group funds for the winning lottery purchase, he breached the agreement between them by not buying tickets for the group on Aug. 15, 2022. They argue that on this basis also they should share in the winnings,” the decision says.

The judge rejected that argument, finding there was no evidence Maan had agreed to buy tickets for the group on the date in question or that there were a “binding” agreement that required Mann or anyone else to buy tickets on a regular basis.

“The fact that the parties bought lottery tickets together, even if they did so with some frequency, is not sufficient to discharge the plaintiffs’ burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that they entered into a binding oral agreement with the defendant that would give them a claim over the winning ticket,” Bantourakis’ decision says.

“Though the plaintiffs may feel that they have a moral entitlement to a share of the winnings, they have not established any legal entitlement. Their claim is therefore dismissed.”

The court also found Maan was entitled to costs.