A British Columbia man who won a $2-million jackpot while participating in a workplace lottery pool is not required to split his winnings with his coworkers, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled.
“Winning the lottery should be a happy event,” Bantourakis wrote in her decision. “In this case, sadly, it has ruined relationships.”
The case dates back to 2022 when Maan purchased the winning BC/49 lotto ticket. At that time, Mann also belonged to a lottery pool at the freight company where he worked. He and four coworkers—Balvinder Kaur Nagra, Sukhjinder Singh Sidhu, Binipal Singh Sanghera and Jeevan Pedan—agreed to pool money to purchase lottery tickets together in 2021 and 2022.
The group of five co-workers did not have a set system for purchasing lottery tickets, the judge noted. The responsibility for purchasing group lottery tickets was not assigned to any one person. Instead, decisions about who would buy the tickets for a particular week or day were made spontaneously.
There was no written agreement, and no records were kept beyond some WhatsApp messages and 16 photos of lottery tickets, the judge wrote in her ruling.
Maan purchased a lottery ticket from a Chevron gas station in Langley on the morning of Monday, Aug. 15, 2022, the court heard. The ticket was for the Aug. 17 BC/49 draw. He discovered three days later the $6 ticket he had purchased was a winner with a $2 million jackpot.
He didn’t share his good news with his co-workers. They finally heard the news nearly two weeks later when the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) published a photo of Maan holding his $2 million cheque.
“Initially, the plaintiffs congratulated Mr. Maan on his win,” the judge wrote. “However, they soon became suspicious.”
Judicial Decision
Deciding how to rule came down to one “largely factual question,” the judge said. “Was the winning ticket a group ticket, or not?”To determine this, the judge assessed whether Maan used group funds to purchase the winning ticket and if he had an obligation to acquire group tickets on the day in question.
There was a lack of sufficient evidence to prove either allegation, the judge said, noting that she received contradictory statements from one of Maan’s accusers.
The ruling also noted that the $12 Maan spent on tickets that day was “more consistent with an individual purchase” rather than a large group buy. She said the group pool was typically $50.
That, combined with the fact that Maan was a “prolific lottery player on his own account for many years,” spending roughly $400 a month on lottery tickets, lent credence to his testimony, the judge said.
“It is my impression that each of the plaintiffs came to Court with a sincerely held belief in their entitlement to a share of the winnings,” the judge wrote. “Though it is impossible to know, I suspect that sense of entitlement was born at least in part from the fact that some of them did play the lottery together more often than the photos show and from Mr. Maan’s post-win behaviour, which they found suspicious. Though the plaintiffs may feel that they have a moral entitlement to a share of the winnings, they have not established any legal entitlement.”
When acquiring a ticket at a retail location, the group captain should print his or her name on the front or back, along with the phrase “In Trust,” the lottery agency said. This signifies that the ticket is designated for a group.
