Man Wins $120K Online Slot Jackpot on Ex’s Account – Then Loses It All in Court

A Canadian man who won C$120,000 (US$85,500) playing on his ex-girlfriend’s JackpotCity casino account has no claim to the money, a British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled.

Unfortunately for Timothy Jones, 51, a commercial fisherman, he and the owner of the account, Cheryl Johnson, broke up shortly after the jackpot win.

He later sued his ex for unjust enrichment, arguing that he was entitled to $112,000, the amount remaining in the account at the time of the couple’s split. Jones claimed it was he who deposited $80 into the online casino account and he who won the money.

Johnson disputed Jones’s version of events, claiming she had been the one to transfer the money into the account. She also said she had expressly forbidden Jones from playing on her account prior to the win, an assertion Jones did not dispute.

Judge Sides With Defendant

Justice Ronald Tindale accepted Johnson’s evidence that she, not Jones, had deposited the $80 into the casino account. Although Jones had transferred $190 into Johnson’s bank account earlier that day, the judge found Johnson made the casino deposit herself while shopping at Costco and noted Jones still owed her about $1,400.

The judge went further and described Jones’ conduct as having wrongfully converted Johnson’s $80 for his own use.

The situation was complicated by the testimony of Johnson’s teenage son, who is not old enough to gamble in British Columbia. The teen said Jones had called him into play after he hit the bonus round and claimed he was the one pressing the buttons when the jackpot hit.

The judge also rejected Jones’ argument that his “strategy” had triggered the slot’s bonus round and ultimately generated the jackpot, finding that no strategy exists in a game of pure chance.

No Skill in Slots

In any case, much of this was moot, because the judge accepted the defendant made the deposit, owned the account, and had forbidden Jones from playing on it.

“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,” wrote Tindale.

“[…T]here 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.”

Johnson acknowledged she had at one point suggested Jones might be entitled to some of the winnings and transferred him about $5,200. But she testified she did so only because she wanted to “get rid of him,” and Tindale ultimately ruled she had a legal right to keep the remaining jackpot.