Co-Workers Clash Over $2 Million BC/49 Win, Court Rules in Favour of Single Ticket Holder

A lawsuit over lottery winnings among five British Columbia co-workers has ended with the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissing the claims of four plaintiffs who said they were entitled to share in a $2 million BC/49 jackpot. In Nagra v. Maan, 2025 BCSC 38, released on January 10, 2025, Justice Bantourakis determined that the winning ticket belonged exclusively to the defendant, Mr. Maan. The court found no evidence that it was purchased with group funds or that he was bound by any ongoing agreement to buy lottery tickets for co-workers.

The Dispute at a Glance

1. Workplace Lottery Pool
   • The five parties worked together at “DRC,” a freight and warehousing company in New Westminster, B.C. They had occasionally pooled money for lottery tickets, although how frequently—and under what exact terms—became a major point of contention.
2. Winning Ticket
   • On August 15, 2022, the defendant, Mr. Maan, purchased a BC/49 ticket for a draw two days later. The jackpot totalled $2,000,000.
   • The plaintiffs, Ms. Nagra, Mr. Sidhu, Mr. Sanghera, and Mr. Pedan, claimed the ticket was a “group ticket” that should have been split five ways.
3. No Written Agreement
   • There was no written contract. The group kept no formal records, other than sporadic WhatsApp messages and photos of some past tickets.
   • Each side gave conflicting testimony on how often they purchased tickets, the amounts contributed, and whether each participant was automatically “in” every week.

Key Points from the Judgment

1. Credibility and Contradictory Accounts
   • Justice Bantourakis highlighted multiple inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ stories, particularly regarding who handed money to whom and when. One plaintiff provided three different versions of how the supposed “group money” was passed to Mr. Maan.
   • The court concluded that the evidence did not show any binding agreement obliging Mr. Maan to buy tickets on August 15, 2022, nor did it prove that he used group funds.
2. Ad Hoc Participation
   • The judge found the group’s lottery-buying practices were “ad hoc” and that any given coworker’s participation varied. While they often pooled funds for large jackpots (like Lotto Max) or on certain days, there was no consistent, mandatory schedule to purchase tickets for the same five-person group every week.
3. Personal Ticket
   • Detailed BCLC records showed Mr. Maan spent around $12 on various lottery options (including BC/49) at a Langley Chevron station. Only $6 went toward the winning BC/49 ticket. The total was significantly smaller than the $50 or more the group typically pooled. This pointed to a personal purchase rather than a group buy.
4. No Legal Entitlement
   • The plaintiffs argued for alternative reasons that they should share in the winnings, including an alleged breach of “group-buy” obligations, but the court found no evidence of such an enforceable agreement.
   • Though the court acknowledged that some coworkers believed they had a moral claim, the legal claim failed, and the winnings were declared to be Mr. Maan’s alone.
5. Costs
   • Justice Bantourakis dismissed the plaintiffs’ case and indicated that the defendant is entitled to costs unless there are further submissions to be made on that point.

Case Background and Broader Context

• Informal Work Pools: Cases like this underscore the risks of casual workplace lottery pools. Without a written agreement or consistent records, disputes can become expensive, fracturing relationships and leading to protracted litigation.
• Reminders and Best Practices:
  • Written Terms: Even a simple group text or note can clarify who is in the pool, how often tickets are bought, and which draws are covered.
  • Photo/Receipt Sharing: Consistently sharing ticket receipts or photos in a group chat can help prove who contributed and which tickets are “group” vs. “personal.”
  • Legal Precedent: Courts tend to look for evidence of a clear agreement and funds actually changing hands. Goodwill and “we always do it this way” arguments, if unsupported by records, often fall short.

Where It Goes from Here

• No Appeal Mentioned: The court’s decision does not specify whether the plaintiffs plan to appeal. Lottery disputes often center heavily on factual findings (e.g., credibility). Appellate courts are typically reluctant to overturn such findings absent a clear error.
• Strained Relationships: The judge noted how winning a lottery was supposed to be joyful but ended up fracturing colleague friendships. The dispute shows how high-value surprises can test verbal understandings and handshake deals.
• Advice to Other Pools: This ruling highlights why even casual players should consider documenting their contributions. Co-workers who frequently pool money for draws may want to create a simple contract or systematically post tickets in a shared forum.