A Canadian individual who claimed C$120,000 (US$85,500) from his ex-girlfriend’s JackpotCity casino account has lost his case, as per a ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court.
For Timothy Jones, aged 51 and working as a commercial fisherman, the situation turned sour after he and account owner Cheryl Johnson ended their relationship shortly after the jackpot victory.
Jones subsequently filed a lawsuit against his ex, claiming unjust enrichment and asserting he was owed $112,000, the balance left in the account at the time of their breakup. He argued that he was the one who contributed $80 to the online casino account, which led to the win.
However, Johnson countered Jones’s claims, stating that it was she who financed the account. Additionally, she contended that she had explicitly prohibited him from using her account prior to the jackpot win, a fact that Jones did not contest.
Judge Rules in Favor of Defendant
Justice Ronald Tindale upheld Johnson’s testimony that she was the one who made the $80 deposit into the casino account. While Jones had transferred $190 to Johnson’s bank account earlier that day, the judge determined that Johnson made the casino deposit herself while shopping, in addition to noting that Jones still owed her approximately $1,400.
The judge further characterized Jones’s actions as having wrongfully appropriated Johnson’s $80 for his personal gain.
The case was complicated by testimony from Johnson’s teenage son, who is underage for gambling in British Columbia. The boy stated that Jones had enlisted him to help play after hitting the bonus round, claiming he was the one pressing the buttons during the jackpot win.
Moreover, the judge dismissed Jones’s assertion that his “strategy” triggered the slot’s bonus round and led to the jackpot, clarifying that there is no strategy involved in a game reliant purely on chance.
No Skill in Slot Games
Ultimately, this argument was largely irrelevant, as the judge accepted the evidence that Johnson made the deposit, retained ownership of the account, and had forbidden Jones from using it.
“In my view, in a game of chance, there cannot be any strategy employed by the plaintiff that influenced the Casino Winnings apart from the fact that the plaintiff played the game,” Tindale wrote.
“[…T]here are legal grounds for the defendant to retain the Casino Winnings: the plaintiff had no authorization to utilize the Casino Account or the $80 that was deposited into it. The winnings were obtained by the plaintiff using the defendant’s funds while playing an online game on the defendant’s laptop without her consent.”
Johnson acknowledged that at one point, she suggested Jones might be entitled to a portion of the winnings and transferred him about $5,200. However, she clarified that this was done merely to “rid herself” of him, and Tindale ultimately concluded that she had the legal right to keep the remaining jackpot funds.