B.C. woman can keep $112K ex-boyfriend won using her online casino account, court rules

An online slot machine game is seen in a stock image.

A B.C. woman is entitled to keep $112,235 her former boyfriend won using her online casino account weeks before they broke up, a court has ruled.

Timothy Jones sued his ex-girlfriend Cheryl Johnson in B.C. Supreme Court over the winnings, arguing she was unjustly enriched by the windfall.

Justice Ronald Tindale disagreed, finding the tidy sum belonged to Johnson alone—regardless of who was playing the online slot machine at the time of the April 2022 jackpot.

“This is not a case where the casino winnings were paid by mistake to the defendant,” reads Tindale’s decision, handed down last week. “It was the defendant’s casino account and it was the defendant’s money which was used to play the winning game.”

The judge also found Jones had been playing without permission. Johnson, a 51-year-old social worker, testified she had asked him to stop using her account to gamble months before the win, in December 2021, which he did not dispute.

And while the court heard Johnson had indicated Jones may be entitled to some of the winnings in a text message weeks after the jackpot, and transferred him a series of payments totalling approximately $5,200, she testified she only did so to “get him out of her life,” according to the decision.

Dispute over circumstances

Jones, also 51 and a commercial fisherman, was living with Johnson at the time of the lucky spin in spring 2022.

Because he worked seasonally, Jones was then relying on employment insurance—and told the court he received a benefit payment that April 13, and deposited $190 into Johnson’s bank account.

Jones said he further transferred $80 of that deposit into Johnson’s account on an online casino platform called JackpotCity, and used those funds to score roughly $120,000 the same day. He argued he’s entitled to everything that was left after Johnson sent him $5,200 and gave a few hundred to her teenage son.

“The plaintiff says that because he provided the funds for the casino winnings, he is beneficially entitled to the winnings and the defendant received those funds as a constructive trustee,” reads Tindale’s judgment.

Johnson disputed that version of events, however, testifying she was the one who transferred the $80 into the account, for her own use, while shopping at Costco.

The judge noted that Jones, in a previous deposition, had said he was “not sure” which one of them made the transfer.

The ex-boyfriend—who testified he owed money to Johnson at the time, but would pay her back when able—had also used $140 of the $190 he deposited that morning to take Johnson and her daughter to Denny’s, according to the decision.

That would have left only $50, not $80.

‘He won’ Facebook post questioned

There was also disagreement about who was actually playing the slot machine game at the time of the jackpot.

Johnson’s teenage son told the court Jones called him in to play after reaching a bonus round, and that he was the one pressing the buttons when the $120,000 was won.

Jones only acknowledged he had allowed the boy—who is not old enough to legally gamble in the province—to “make a few spins” earlier in the day, according to Tindale’s decision.

The court also heard Jones posted something to the effect of “he won” on Facebook following the win. Jones admitted to doing so, but testified he was referring to himself, not his ex-girlfriend’s son.

“In my view, this explanation makes little sense,” Tindale said.

The judge found it didn’t make a difference who was behind the computer anyway, if the money used belonged to Johnson.

Another argument from Jones—that it was his own gambling strategy that brought the game to the bonus round—was rejected as well.

“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,” Tindale’s decision reads.