An Ontario man who parted ways with his live-in girlfriend after winning the lottery has been awarded half of the disputed $6.1 million Lotto 6/49 prize.
But the rest of the cash bonanza remains in legal limbo.
Maurice Thibeault arrived at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.'s Toronto prize centre holding one of the two winning tickets in the Sept. 20 jackpot, worth $12.2 million.
But before the Chatham resident could collect the money, his former girlfriend Denise Robertson, 46, obtained an emergency court injunction and alerted OLG not to hand over the millions.
"OLG has verified that the ticket in question was purchased by Maurice Thibeault and will proceed to pay him one-half (approximately $3.07 million) of the prize on or about Dec. 30, 2017," the provincial gaming agency said in a statement.
"The other half of the prize, which is in dispute, will be paid into court in 45 days unless the parties resolve the matter privately or choose to take part in the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario's lottery dispute arbitration process," OLG said.
"OLG's prize claim review process is in place to ensure OLG pays the right prize to the right person."
Robertson's lawyer, Steven Pickard, said Monday that "barring a settlement, it's going to end up in court."
"The only formal process that we have left to us is a statement of claim. Other than something that's agreed to by the parties, the next step is a statement of claim," said Pickard.
"She does claim that half of the $6.1 million is hers. She doesn't dispute his half. It's our position that what's being paid to court is entirely hers," he said.
"They shared everything. She's adamant and quite confident that she's entitled to her half. Despite the fact that he's going to get his half first, she doesn't think that changes her entitlement."
Neither Thibeault, 46, nor his lawyer, Richard Dinham, returned repeated messages seeking comment.
Sources close to Robertson have said she asked Thibeault if the ticket, which had the numbers 6, 17, 29, 37, 45, and 47 on it, had won and he responded that it hadn't.
Her friends say she thought nothing of it until he moved out of her house five days after the draw.
In their two years and one month of living together in her house, with her teenage daughter from a previous marriage, the couple often played the lottery, said a source.
Thibeault bought the ticket at a Chatham convenience store using a debit card linked to his personal bank account.
His friends say while she texted him to ask if he'd bought a ticket, she did not ask him whether their numbers had won.
They also maintain he had been planning for months to end the relationship and the lottery win merely expedited the separation.
The two are not considered common-law spouses as they had not cohabited for the requisite three years and have no children together.
On Sept. 25, Robertson, a federal public servant, arrived home to find Thibeault, a father of three who worked at a granite and glass supply firm, had cleared out all his belongings from their shared home. He had also quit his job.
The other half of the overall $12.2 million prize was won by a ticket holder in Quebec.
Should be interesting. Maybe not half but I would at least give her a parting gift. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000-1,000,000. that's just me though....
They weren't married, she gets nothing.
Ladies,
When a man gets his money right (in this case he won the lotto) and if he doesn't have children with you, a woman finds out if you're REALLY the one he wants to be with . . .or if you were just the best he could do at the time.
If they don't have it now: Canada may soon have Palimony!
What is Palimony?
Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not Legally Married.
Just a thought: This guy has lived for 25 months with both this woman & her " teenage " daughter. Probably started getting flak from this kid, you know the old lines" You not my father,you can't tell me what to do"- the Mother takes the daughter's side, and he figures out its best to leave these two. As luck would have it, He hits it big, and makes an exit... and now this! It's as a friend of mine says " you never know with women."
A man comes home one day and says, "Guess what honey? Pack your bags, I won the lottery!" The wife squeals with delight and says, "That's great! Should I pack for the mountains or the beach?" He says, "I don't care, just get out!"
Husband: What would you do if i won the lottery?
Wife: I'd take half and leave.
Husband: Well, I won $12. Here's $6 and you can start packing anytime now.
What's the difference between a man arguing with his wife and a man with a lottery ticket? The man with the lottery ticket actually has a chance to win.
If the relationship deteriorated beyond repair, where there was yelling & screaming. Her saying " l hate you,you a loser, how did l ever allow myself to end up with you"- she gets absolutely nothing. If he found someone else, and wanted to let Denise down gently- yeah, maybe $200,000 & bye bye Felicia.If her daughter was the mouth,and she went along with it- the price drops to $100,000. For whatever good times existed before the collapse.
That's my final answer Denise!
He bought the ticket. With funds from his own personal, non-shared bank account. He's the winner. She deserves and should get nothing. Maybe next time she'll make the guy put a ring on it before allowing cohabitation with her and her daughter.
...however if Maurice & Denise were splitting a bottle of wine and Denise had Maurice, while he was intoxicated, sign a lottery agreement to split any jackpot evenly on a napkin... that changed everything!
Maurice and Denise, rhythms doesn't it? For all the wrong reasons l might add.
I would be very surprised if the court did not split the money 50/50. They play the lottery together so it was a joint effort and they lived together as a couple. We have also seen in other cases where there is deceit (in this case, lying about the ticket and moving out), the court will at least split it and in one case, I believe the deceitful party had to give more than 50% of his/her share. If it was his ticket, why did he lie about it??? And none of those cases had a written agreement. I doubt any court would give any credibility for the sudden move by blaming the teenage daughter. Case closed.
She will get her share at least.
If Jon Luc is so sure that he's client is entitled to half of the jackpot payout, why on earth would he say " Other than something that's agreed to by both parties.." I am no lawyer, but that statement right there, implies that he's HOPING a deal could be reached. He's own words betray him. Why make a deal, if you know things are going to go your way? Jon luc is not a very good attorney, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
In any legal drama or personal dispute between two parties, the judge expects parties to make good faith efforts to settle the matter. You want your client to look like the most reasonable party. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. I have a feeling the guy is so busy spending his windfall, he has little interest in coming to the table.
The law says they have to live together over 3 years. She's out of luck, case closed.
Lol. No one referenced the common law wife argument. A judge is free to look at all the facts that I mentioned previously. Someone who thought the ticket was solely his, would not have acted with an intent to deceive. Doctrine of unclean hands. Canada follows the body of common law there (no relationship to a common law wife issue). The case would not have survived a motion to dismiss and had court ordered negotiations, unless at least a colorable claim was presented. Judges decide cases based on equities alone frequently.
How would a picture add credibility to either side? Stereotyping women as chasing men in a desperate attempt to get married is rather demeaning. Most women I know have men chasing them to settle down. These old stereotypes are dropping by the wayside at an accelerated pace and it sounds like she had a career vs his blue collar job. So it sounds like she could do much better. A real man could handle an alleged petulant teenager.
I could retire very early if I had a dollar for every creep who bragged about his money.
Most people who are in a solid relationship just don't up & leave. By the looks of things, there was trouble in paradise. All l want is a visual. As an example, ever bought a dog from someone over the phone? Them telling you, it's great with people doesn't bite, hardly barks etc? But when you get a picture , you can somewhat draw certain conclusions- that's all. Stop being so uptight, about little things.Next l'm going to hear, dogs are not people. ..right?
What a bizarre response. And here we go with the subject shifting. By the way, telling a woman not to be uptight tells us all what an old dinosaur you are. It is offensive and outdated. You will never learn.
And No one in their right mind can tell the character of someone via a photo.
I happen to be in my 30's if that's being a dinosaur, then so be it. I used that word with you,because l know you definitely not in your 30's, and sure enough, you recognize it.The other thing is, l tolerated responding to your post, because you quoted mine.But no more.
The last time you threw offensive language out at me, it went something like this: l bet you have a criminal record etc etc.
Yet here you are, having the gall to tell me that l never learn. For the very last time, stay away from my posts, you a trouble maker.l wish you well in your future.
"why on earth would he say " Other than something that's agreed to ..."
He was talking about going to court if they can't agree on a settlement, exactly as he did in the previous paragraph of the article. The reason that either might settle is because anyone who's not moron knows that there's always a chance of losing regardless of how good your case is, and if it takes longer to reach a settlement or get a court verdict you may lose more to legal fees. There's also the hope that the other party will recognize that they're the one with a really poor chance and settle for the whole amount you're asking. If the guy's lawyer hasn't told him to offer her something he's the one who's a lousy lawyer
"The law says they have to live together over 3 years."
You'd be 100% right if the question was whether or not they were married, but the question is whether or not she was a co-owner of the ticket or entitled to a portion for some other reason. If it was as simple as whether or not they were married it's very unlikely that the court would have granted the injunction.
I'd like to see a picture too. More than likely she wouldn't stop gaining weight. Nothing turns a guy off more than a fat chick.
Thanks Floyd : As Jon Luc Pickard would say: Understood!
l want to see whether the daughter has half her head shaved, are their bolts through her nose? Is she carrying that rebellious look around with her? You get the picture. Btw, we draw up mental conclusions as a society all the time. That guy standing on the curb with a sign" if l give him a dollar, is he going to use it to buy a beer? That lady walking her dog at 5am- does she have a doggy bag with her or is her pooch going to drop a load on my lawn?
At first I was thinking old common-laws in effect, next I was thinking that she's just after money, but now after reading to the end I have to say wow that dude is a total jerk. After living together for 2 years, and they played together all the time, she checked if he did buy a ticket, and then when she asks him if it won, he says no and moves out 5 days later??? Wow , what a greedy jerk. I hope she gets her half. 12 million, you only need half of that to not work these days, unless you party crazy hard.
"she checked if he did buy a ticket, and then when she asks him if it won, he says no and moves out 5 days later"
Where's the evidence that it's him and his friends that are liars and not her and "the sources close to" her?
If you read it to the end you should be wondering if there might be any text messages that would support one version or the other and how credible his friends' claims are that he had been wanting to end the relationship. Before winning he had no financial motive to lie about that, but after discovering he had won the girlfriend would have a financial motive for lying about his denial. According to the article "Her friends say she thought nothing of it until he moved out of her house five days after the draw" so it seems unlikely that her friends would have any knowledge about his alledged lie other than her telling them. That's what the courts call hearsay, and is unlikely to be admissible.
The article says " They shared everything " what exactly does that mean? If that was so, why did they not have a joint banking account, a lottery slush fund where both parties can dip into to play the game. You know, hey honey, it's me. Did you purchase any tickets on your way home from work today? No, okay don't worry, l will pick them up. Thanks bye. Instead, Maurice purchases the winning ticket with he's own money. Probably couldn't believe he's good fortune when he won- l finally get a chance to get away from this *perhaps demanding woman and her kid. If he loved the relationship he was in before the win, why bail? Even if you living with someone you love, and your partner has cancer, don't worry honey l am here for you. Lost your job, we in this together it shall pass, brighter days ahead. The love was gone way before the win.. lm telling you!