Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 7, 2016, 7:02 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Co-worker suing for share of lottery prize

Canada 6/49Canada 6/49: Co-worker suing for share of lottery prize

A Sudbury city employee has launched a civil lawsuit claiming he deserves his share of a $13.6 million Canada Lotto 6/49 jackpot won by five co-workers last summer.

In court papers filed at the Sudbury courthouse, Raymond Chamberland, claims he deserved to share in the Lotto 6/49 prize claimed by five fellow employees from the city's waste management department when they claimed the huge lottery jackpot last July 9.

The five employees made national headlines when they claimed $2.7 million each. The five men named in the lawsuit are Ted Hreljac, Jeff McLaughlin, Marc Chartier, Richard St. Martin and Kevin Provincial.

When contacted by Northern Life Monday, Chamberland referred all inquiries to his lawyer Richard Guy.

In a statement of claim filed by Guy at the Sudbury courthouse, Chamberland says he's fully entitled to share in the lottery jackpot as he had joined a pool with the five winners and they had played Lotto 6/49 on a regular basis over several months.

The statement of claim states on the day before the winning numbers were drawn, Chamberland asked Provincial to "spot him" money needed to acquire tickets as part of the regular pool for July 9 draw and Provincial agreed to do just that.

No statement of defense has been filed by any of the five defendants. Four of the five are being represented by Sudbury lawyer Michael O'Hara, who refused to comment on the matter.

"I have no comment and I do not ever comment on any matter that is currently before the courts," said O'Hara. "I've informed all of my clients to not talk about the case as it remains before courts...once the matter is completed and a judicial decision has been made, then the people I represent would be free to talk about it at that time."

A statement of claim does not prove or disprove anything in a civil action, but simply outlines allegations by the claimant against defendants, which have not yet been proven in a court of law.

Chamberland's statement of claim says he had a phone conversation with some of the winners on the day they were traveling to Toronto to claim their prize and Provincial confirmed Chamberland was one of the winners.

Lawyers will return to court April 5 to speak to a motion presented by lawyers for the defendants who are asking the civil action be dismissed.

Guy said he is confident the lawsuit will proceed because Chamberland has a very strong case.

"I can't go into details, but it's our position my client is entitled to his share of the winnings," said Guy. "Defense counsel has presented a motion to strike the statement of claim, but I don't think they will be successful."

The vast majority of civil actions are either dismissed or settled out of court, but Guy said every case must be judged on its own merits.

"I think we could get this case before a judge within two years," he said. "Of course, there's always a chance of a settlement in any civil proceeding...only time will tell what happens."

Disputes over winning lottery prizes are becoming more and more commonplace in Canada.

Two years ago, a London couple made headlines when a woman sued her estranged husband after he waited a year to claim a $30 million prize in a 2003 national lottery.

Just a few weeks ago in Montreal, a 10-year-old girl found a coffee cup in a garbage bin. The cup offered a prize for a new SUV in a popular Tim Hortons promotion. Two other people say they have a claim to the prize.

Northern Life

We'd love to see your comments here!  Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment.

38 comments. Last comment 11 years ago by libra926.
Page 1 of 3
fja's avatar - gnome1

United States
Member #91
January 19, 2002
11931 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 22, 2006, 10:25 am - IP Logged

LurkingHere we go! 

I haven't heard anything about the california group in awhile I wonder if they settled quietly?

    Avatar
    New Member

    United States
    Member #35738
    March 22, 2006
    2 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 22, 2006, 12:18 pm - IP Logged

    It's unbelievable that the courts allow these claims... try to get a ticket from a retailer without cash in hand.  Anyone can falsely claim they asked someone "To Spot" them the money.

    In my office pool, if you don't pay up you are not in it, if your name doesn't appear on the copies I distrubute... again you are not in the pool.. I hate lazy people that want a free ride.  Pay in advance if you are going to be out... don't buy that six pack of beer or cigarettes... save your money for the pool.

    I hope they counter sue him for stupidity, and wasting their time.

      bluedog's avatar - animaniacs30
      New Member
      Midland, Texas.
      United States
      Member #9873
      December 25, 2004
      17 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 22, 2006, 1:07 pm - IP Logged

      Sickening I don't understand how the court system would allow for some money hungry just individual to try and come back with some story like that.
      I feel that if an individual do not put money up front for the lottery pool he should get nothing.
      It seems to me that people will not put the money up when asked to do so and then when you win here they come with both hands out.
      I feel the same as Iwannawin2 I just hate lazy people that want a free ride.
      If you don't pay you don't play simple as that.
      Judge please don't waste your time!

        Avatar
        New Member

        United States
        Member #35738
        March 22, 2006
        2 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 22, 2006, 1:32 pm - IP Logged

        If by a slim chance that someone offered to throw in for him, see if the amount of tickets is divideable by 5 or 6...if they only bought enough for 5 then he's out of luck.

          Avatar
          NY
          United States
          Member #23835
          October 16, 2005
          3474 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 22, 2006, 3:30 pm - IP Logged

          It's unbelievable that the courts allow these claims... try to get a ticket from a retailer without cash in hand.  Anyone can falsely claim they asked someone "To Spot" them the money.

          In my office pool, if you don't pay up you are not in it, if your name doesn't appear on the copies I distrubute... again you are not in the pool.. I hate lazy people that want a free ride.  Pay in advance if you are going to be out... don't buy that six pack of beer or cigarettes... save your money for the pool.

          I hope they counter sue him for stupidity, and wasting their time.

          Is it unbelieveable that the courts would allow you to sue if you were hit by a drunk driver and there are no unbiased witnesses? Whether a claim has merit or not can only be determined by hearing whatever evidence there might be. Claiming that he had to have another pool member advance the money for his tickets suggests that he's telling the truth, or it suggests that he's clever enough to create that suggestion, because if he's lying he could have simply said that he chipped in his share. Whether or not a pool member agreed to advance the money is also a separate issue that only needs to be considered if it's determined that he really was a member of the pool.

          The rules for a pool may say that if you don't pay up you're not in it, but even if it's in writing it may be meaningless if someone in the pool says they'll advance the money to somebody. FTM, any written agreement could be invalidated, either in whole or in part, by a court and should probably be considered unreliable unless it has been reviewed by an attorney.

          As for checking to see how many tickets were bought, proving that the number is divisable by 6 but not by 5 would certainly be helpful to the claimant, but  the opposite wouldn't necessarily help the defendants.  Proving they bought 25 doesn't prove that they didn't also buy 5 more, and there's always the possibility that the person who agreed to advance the money figured they were unlikely to win and he was unlikely to be caught if he didn't buy the tickets but collected the money the following week.

          I'm certainly skeptical that 5 people would all conspire to exclude somebody who was a legitimate member of the pool, but it's easy to believe that asking for an advance resulted in a legitimate  disagreement. Maybe th eperson who agreed to advance the money forgot to chip in the extra when giving their money to the person who bought the tickets. If that's the case, is the pool liable, or is any dispute strictly between the borrower and the lender?  That's a good example of why it's important for pools to have a well written agreement on the rules, and it's also one of the reasons that we have courts.

            Avatar
            Bethesda, Maryland
            United States
            Member #16901
            June 6, 2005
            446 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 22, 2006, 4:31 pm - IP Logged

            HAPPY GREED DAY...EVERYONE...

            LOLOLOLOL......now, now, why am I NOT SURPRISED BY THIS ........LOLOLOLOLOLOL

            oh and (btw)  " fja"  I too have been wondering about the CALI Lawsuit, and it's conclusion...what did happen?? what was decided either by the Judge or the Group themselves???? 

              Avatar
              Bethesda, Maryland
              United States
              Member #16901
              June 6, 2005
              446 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 22, 2006, 4:47 pm - IP Logged

              HAPPY GREED DAY..."KY"...... 

              The rules for a pool may say that if you don't pay up you're not in it, but even if it's in writing it may be meaningless if someone in the pool says they'll advance the money to somebody. FTM, any written agreement could be invalidated, either in whole or in part, by a court and should probably be considered unreliable unless it has been reviewed by an attorney.

               This point is very well made, and may I 'piggy-back ' to it...In addition to getting the 'pool agreement' reviewed by an Attorney, get it also Notarized by a licensed Notary Republic...seal and all.....

              I'm certainly skeptical that 5 people would all conspire to exclude somebody who was a legitimate member of the pool, but it's easy to believe that asking for an advance resulted in a legitimate  disagreement. Maybe th eperson who agreed to advance the money forgot to chip in the extra when giving their money to the person who bought the tickets. If that's the case, is the pool liable, or is any dispute strictly between the borrower and the lender?  That's a good example of why it's important for pools to have a well written agreement on the rules, and it's also one of the reasons that we have courts.
              You point out another side to this that's very possible and plausible. However, as you know we the LP members have debated this issue in the CALI Kaiser case, and others, with respect to Office Pool arrangements/agreements. It's a hard judgment to make. However, keeping in mind the high cost of the legal fees, and court costs involved, is it worth it to fight the matter??? Or, simply settle the issue outside the Courts, avoiding all the legal ramifications??? Again, I suggest that all Office Pools with 'so-called iron-clad rules' get the Document Notarized and signed by a Licensed Notary Public.

              That Notary Seal is respected in all Courts and Jurisdictions making any document it touches  Binding and Legal. No matter who sues.

               

                justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                Wandering Aimlessly
                United States
                Member #25360
                November 5, 2005
                4461 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 22, 2006, 6:33 pm - IP Logged

                "Just a few weeks ago in Montreal, a 10-year-old girl found a coffee cup in a garbage bin. The cup offered a prize for a new SUV in a popular Tim Hortons promotion. Two other people say they have a claim to the prize."

                I don't know if Canada has laws like "must be over 18 to participate" but the darn car belongs to this little girl!  Even if her parents take it, they should pay her the retail value and invest it in a savings account in her name.  Now suddenly trash has legal ownership?  Grrrrr!

                Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed. --Albert Einstein

                  TheGameGrl's avatar - character catafly.jpg
                  A long and winding road
                  United States
                  Member #17084
                  June 10, 2005
                  4526 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 22, 2006, 7:00 pm - IP Logged

                  Please review the duties of what a Notary is and isnt allowed to do. I think you'll be surprised at the fact that they are NOT allowed to give legal advise on its contents. They are to witness the signature and the authenticy of the person(s) presenting it for seal. They are not allowed to prepare legal documents but may witness the signature once prepared. They are not allowed to seal anything which bears witness against their notary oath and responsibilities as administered by their state of registry. The seal does not make it a binding document , it authenticates/ validates the existance of said document. The *verbage* of the document can still be argued in court. Take any last will and testament and see how it can still be argued in court despite a lawyers signature, two witness's,and the deceased.

                  As to stating that a "simple" docuement doesnt hold up in court is different. So long as the basic provisions are adhered too , it CAN be upheld. An IOU(promissory note) is a an example.

                  The Canadian laws may well be different so the issues as we know them may be mute.

                  If indeed the guy can prove that his one associate (who may or may not be a member of the winning Pool)did spot him for the lottery, he may well have a case. Again, evidence is the key in this suit. Its not a frivoulous lawsuit if he does have certain canadian laws in his favor. 

                  ~~Is it true, Is it kind,Is it necessary. ~~~

                   Thanks be to the giving numbers: 1621,912,119 02014

                    sirbrad's avatar - Lottery-062.jpg
                    PA
                    United States
                    Member #22983
                    October 6, 2005
                    2226 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: March 22, 2006, 7:10 pm - IP Logged

                    That is why I do not play "work pools." But people need to realize that pools are a "pay per play" basis usually, you can't take short cuts. If you did not put your money into the draw, you are not in that draw. It is that simple. I don't care if you put in the draw 20 years, if your money is not in for the winning draw, you are out. It is that simple. If you did not play for 20 years, and just happen to play during the winning draw, congratulations on being a millionaire.

                      LottoGroups's avatar - peace

                      Canada
                      Member #35567
                      March 19, 2006
                      40 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: March 22, 2006, 9:26 pm - IP Logged

                      Casual groups can easily lead to problems. With the groups I join or organize, I insist on being very specific about who is in and who is out. I have just recently decided to always include everyone's name in the email announcing the purchase of tickets.

                      For a lot of the regular players, I do not base their membership in the group on whether they have paid or not. I just consider it as money oweing. That is simply my preference and it allows me to have more people in each group for each draw.

                      Lotto Groups - the best way to win

                        BaristaExpress's avatar - BaristaExpressMX zpsfb0d8b5d.png
                        Magnolia, Delaware
                        United States
                        Member #18795
                        July 20, 2005
                        789 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: March 22, 2006, 10:27 pm - IP Logged

                        No Money, No Claim to any prize! That is the best reason as to why I do not "Ever" put money in a lottery pool of any kind! My money will never be tied up for 2 or 3 years, because of some other fool hearted selfish turkey just because they thought they deserve some of the winnings for some reason or another! You paid your money or you didn't, and if you didn't, TO BAD, there is no sharing the wealth with a non payer! 

                        Keep dreaming the impossible dream, it just may come true! Thumbs Up

                          Avatar

                          United States
                          Member #119
                          February 19, 2002
                          527 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: March 22, 2006, 10:31 pm - IP Logged

                          I've said this here before on several occasions: Never EVER play in a lottery pool unless EACH member of the pool has been given a photocopy of all the tickets bought BEFORE the drawing AND there is a list of all pool members playing that particular drawing.

                          I put money in for a member who did not give me his/her money ahead of time on occasion and not once did I get stiffed; if I did I would never do the same for him/her again and I would have documented that failure in the event we won down the road and said member tried to "sue".

                          As for this case, I do not know the specifics but as the person who selected and bought the numbers for the pool I used to run, I covered my butt before, during and after.

                            Down's avatar - Sphere animated2.gif
                            Riverside, Ca
                            United States
                            Member #21722
                            September 14, 2005
                            173 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: March 23, 2006, 5:54 am - IP Logged

                            Thats so lame, that guy has no case he's mad because he gets no money, and 13.6 million is not alot of money 5 ways.  and the guy in california has no case, just greedy people trying to get some money for nothing.