A British Columbia man tried suing his ex-girlfriend, claiming ownership of the winnings paid to her online gambling account that were generated when he was playing a game on her laptop — the court rejected his claim, ruling that the money belongs to her as it was rightfully paid into her bank account from her online gambling account.
According to a decision of the Supreme Court of B.C., in April 2022, Timothy Jones was using his then-girlfriend’s online gambling account at JackpotCity — which was connected to and funded from her bank account at TD Bank — when he won $112,350 in an online game, which was paid into her TD account.
The court said that Jones testified that the relationship soured after the win, and the couple broke up the following month — he then sued his ex, Cheryl Johnson, seeking the winnings.
Among other things, he argued that his ex-girlfriend was “unjustly enriched” when she received the payout. He claimed that the game that resulted in the win was played using his money, and so he is, “entitled to the winnings and the defendant received those funds as a constructive trustee.”
Johnson opposed the action, arguing that Jones used her account without permission, that it’s not clear that his money was used to play the game, and that he wasn’t entitled to any of the winnings.
Ultimately, the court sided with the ex-girlfriend, ruling that she was entitled to keep the money.
The court found that Johnson was not unjustly enriched by receiving the winnings, because Jones wasn’t using his own online gambling account, or his own money to play the game — as a result, “there is no corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff and for that reason the plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment must fail,” the court said.
Additionally, the court said that the fact that the winnings were the result of luck undermines the claim for deprivation.
“In my view, on a game of chance there can be no strategy which the plaintiff employed that resulted in the casino winnings beyond the fact that the plaintiff played the game,” it noted.
Finally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that there’s no legal justification for his ex retaining the winnings.
“In my view, there is a reason in law for the defendant to retain the casino winnings: the plaintiff had no permission to use the casino account or the $80 which was transferred into the casino account. The casino winnings were won by the plaintiff using the defendant’s money playing an online game on the defendant’s laptop computer without her permission. The plaintiff wrongfully converted the $80 of the defendant for his own use,” the court said.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Jones isn’t entitled to the winnings, “because it would not be unjust” for his ex to keep them.
“This is not a case where the casino winnings were paid by mistake to the defendant,” the court noted. “It was the defendant’s casino account and it was the defendant’s money which was used to play the winning game all without the permission of the defendant. The casino winnings were properly deposited into the TD account.”