Group winners of BC Lotto in dispute over $14.5M jackpot

[mallik]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet. If this a repost I apologize. Did anybody hear about the group winners of the $14.5M jackpot BC Lotto? Here's the story:


Lotto dispute heads for B.C. Supreme Court

A disputed $14.5 million lottery win will be divided up by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, says the B.C. Lottery Corp.

"We were informed by the various legal counsels representing the winners that they were unable to resolve their dispute," Jim Lightbody, the Crown corporation's operations vice-president, said Tuesday.

Nine workers at an A&W restaurant in Mission, B.C. initially claimed to be the winners.

However, co-workers Tanis McQuillan and Meagan Weisgerber came forward to say they had been part of the group's lottery pool because they had previously paid in -- although not during the time the winning ticket was sold, according to the nine.

Two more co-workers over the weekend came forward with claims on the earnings after that.

The corporation wanted an answer by Monday, but extended that until Tuesday at the request of the group of nine.

But the various sides weren't able to resolve the issue amongst themselves.

Lightbody said the money will earn interest while the case is heard through the courts.

"What a court is going to look at as a legal question is: What was the intention of these A&W employees when they entered that lottery poll?" Legal analyst Steven Skurka said, appearing on CTV's Canada AM.

"For example, what happened in the past when one of the employees missed a payment and there was a losing ticket? Did that employee still make the contribution?

"That's really going to be the crucial question here."

The feud was featured in a lead editorial in The Vancouver Province newspaper, which urged the nine workers to let the other two contested members have a share so that lawyers don't take their cut in a court battle.

Lightbody said the dispute has reminded the many Canadians involved in workplace pools to write down who is in their pool.

If the matter does end up court, he said it would be the first such legal battle in the corporation's history.

Meanwhile, back at the restaurant, the combatants continue to work side by side.

"I have no comment about the lottery okay?" A&W manager Francis Carcasson told CTV News. "We're just here doing what we do, looking after our customers, serving teen burgers and floats."

Link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125320842664_167/?hub=Canada

I would kicking myself If that happened to me. If those two girls didn't regularly contribute, I would say TS. I bet It's most likely going to court though, and they'll probably get a cut of it.

[rafiki]

OLD! lol well I guess it takes a while for news to travel east ;) So much for TO being the center of the universe ;)

[EchoAngel911]

i would say just split it with everyone.

Each person will still end up with a million dollars +.

Since it's going into the courts, the lawyers will end up taking most of the money! Those greedy fools (lottery winners).

[felix]

Wow, so lucky .. I would have loved to work there. :cheesygri

[iNFiNiTe]

okay, the keywords are "PREVIOUSLY PAID IN"... meaning these people have no claim on this particular lottery winnings, since they added zero performance towards the purchase of this eventual winning ticket.

if court allows the money to be distributed to these other people, then think of the bad precedent it will set, everybody who ever joined the pool, perhaps contributing a dollar 10 years ago, can claim part of the winning...


it will be next to impossible to prove that there was an oral contract that allowed members of the pool to miss payments and still be able to claim the win... court will decide what's most logical, and the logic tells me they get N-O-T-H-I-N-G and stick to working at A&W :D

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

okay, the keywords are "PREVIOUSLY PAID IN"... meaning these people have no claim on this particular lottery winnings, since they added zero performance towards the purchase of this eventual winning ticket.

if court allows the money to be distributed to these other people, then think of the bad precedent it will set, everybody who ever joined the pool, perhaps contributing a dollar 10 years ago, can claim part of the winning...





I definitely agree, these smart-azzes don't deserve a penny...... can you give me the adress of that town so I can go and claim something too?

[devious9191]

okay, the keywords are "PREVIOUSLY PAID IN"... meaning these people have no claim on this particular lottery winnings, since they added zero performance towards the purchase of this eventual winning ticket.

if court allows the money to be distributed to these other people, then think of the bad precedent it will set, everybody who ever joined the pool, perhaps contributing a dollar 10 years ago, can claim part of the winning...


it will be next to impossible to prove that there was an oral contract that allowed members of the pool to miss payments and still be able to claim the win... court will decide what's most logical, and the logic tells me they get N-O-T-H-I-N-G and stick to working at A&W :D

I think the deal is that if this group regularly pitches in to buy lottery tickets, and if for example, two people aren't working that day, would tickets be purchased on their behalf, and they would pay back the group for those tickets and still be considered 'in'. If that's the case, then I think they'd be entitled to their share. If they usually don't pay back the group afterwards, then not in.

[iNFiNiTe]

I definitely agree, these smart-azzes don't deserve a penny...... can you give me the adress of that town so I can go and claim something too?

they were probably encouraged by their lawyers, too.. these are A&W employees, and probably can't afford lawyers on their own... meaning the fees are likely to be a large share percentage from the amount of a successful claim...

in the end, it just may be cheaper to simply share the winning with the other two... but I really dont think these two will get the $$...

[IceMan77]

This is really dumb... That'd be like buying the same numbers in the lottery every week, but forgetting to buy one week and the numbers just happened to turn up that week. You think the Lottery would give it back to you? I think not!

[jui_jui]

This is really dumb... That'd be like buying the same numbers in the lottery every week, but forgetting to buy one week and the numbers just happened to turn up that week. You think the Lottery would give it back to you? I think not!

totally agree! if they didn't pitch in ~ like physically pay their share ~ then too bad for them

[deep]

The point is that if anyone in the group had previously missed a payment and then paid AFTER the group learned that they HADN'T won, then there is a precedent that it was a common practice for people to miss and "catch up" on their payments, and that those people were still part of the group.

If so, then they are certainly entitled.

[Kommander_KornFlakes]

The point is that if anyone in the group had previously missed a payment and then paid AFTER the group learned that they HADN'T won, then there is a precedent that it was a common practice for people to miss and "catch up" on their payments, and that those people were still part of the group.

If so, then they are certainly entitled.

But how do we know if those extra people claiming the prize NEVER played with that group and now want a free ride?

[me!]

not on the list, then STFU.

[devious9191]

not on the list, then STFU.

Would you stfu if being on the list was worth over a million dollars, and you thought you were entitled to it?

[me!]

Would you stfu if being on the list was worth over a million dollars, and you thought you were entitled to it?
There is a rule that my group has. every ticket gets a list of names on it. So if your name is not on the list, then you are not entitled. BUT, if someone paid for you because you forgot that week, then that is noted down and then you are entitled. (but it is up the the payer to pay for the non paying person ticket at his /her discretion)

there should be no "one time list" at the beginning of the pool only to assume that you will pay up every week.

A new list is drawn up ever time a new ticket for a new draw is purchased.

[devious9191]

There is a rule that my group has. every ticket gets a list of names on it. So if your name is not on the list, then you are not entitled. BUT, if someone paid for you because you forgot that week, then that is noted down and then you are entitled. (but it is up the the payer to pay for the non paying person ticket at his /her discretion)

there should be no "one time list" at the beginning of the pool only to assume that you will pay up every week.

A new list is drawn up ever time a new ticket for a new draw is purchased.

Maybe they have different rules than your group..

[me!]

Maybe they have different rules than your group..
most likely.

the rules my group implemented are fair, i believe, especially since if one person is away sick or on vacation, one person wil usually spot for the other and make a note of it on the list. Granted, that person could claim the absent person's claim, but we are all professional about it and companions, that would never happen, (i think.......)

[dakota2001]

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.html?id=79f96d81-9019-4df8-81cc-fcd01aad74d3


In Toronto, six newspaper pressmen, who won $3.8 million, were stalled in the courts for three years when a seventh employee claimed to be in the winning pool.

After a court fight, the seventh employee got $521,000.



This has happened before, & the guy won.

Ugh greed! If they didn't pay in, they deserve squat!

But the justice system will give them their pie. :twisted:

[MrDisco]

these group lotteries make me increasingly nervous. i only invite a select group i can trust and in small numbers, whether its for the subscription or for the odd purchase (like today's 14 million). its pretty simple - if your name is not on the list, then you don't win.

[me!]

these group lotteries make me increasingly nervous. i only invite a select group i can trust and in small numbers, whether its for the subscription or for the odd purchase (like today's 14 million). its pretty simple - if your name is not on the list, then you don't win.
Thank you!!!!!

[cko64]

Thank you!!!!!
Why? Are you one of the nine who won?

[grant]

okay, the keywords are "PREVIOUSLY PAID IN"...

Interesting, I thought the key words are "according to the nine".

but it's not like they have a bias, right?

[me!]

Why? Are you one of the nine who won?
me! work at A&W??

man, I don't even eat there.