COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Hoy A.C.J.O., Brown and Huscroft JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Paul Spiro
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Elizabeth Koc, Bonnie Strapp, Valentina Skribane, Marija Cavdamova, and Tania Cam
Defendants (Respondents/Appellant)
Marek Z. Tufman and Eleonora Izmaylov, for the appellant, Tania Cam
Saul I. Glober, Q.C., for the respondent, Paul Spiro
Robert L. Jenkins, for the respondents, Elizabeth Koc, Bonnie Strapp, Valentina Skribane and Marija Cavdamova
Heard: July 19, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice John C. Murray of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 27, 2015, with reasons reported at 2015 ONSC 609.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant, Tania Cam, appeals the trial judge’s determination that she was unjustly enriched by receiving $200,000 (a one-fifth share of the proceeds of a winning lottery ticket) and that Paul Spiro, a respondent, was entitled to this amount instead.
2The relevant facts can be summarized briefly.
3Spiro used to work at a bank in Milton, Ontario. Some employees at the branch, including Spiro, would contribute money to a pool for buying Lotto Max tickets. The group of employees who participated in the pool was not always the same. Spiro and four other employees (the “Other Employees”), also respondents on this appeal, contributed money for a lottery ticket purchased on June 25, 2010. Spiro left his job at the bank on July 16, 2010, and stopped participating in the pool at that time.
4Cam started working at the bank and joined the pool after July 19, 2010. On August 25, 2010, Cam took the June 25 ticket to a local vendor. She discovered that the June 25 ticket had resulted in a “free play” ticket. That free play ticket, in turn, won $1,000,000 in the Lotto Max draw of August 13, 2010.
5Cam and the Other Employees split the proceeds five ways. The respondent was not given any of the proceeds and was not notified about the winning ticket. Cam knew that the winning ticket was a prize for a lottery ticket purchased by a group in which she was not a participant, but she did not notify any of the Other Employees of that fact.
6The trial judge found that Spiro and the Other Employees were co-owners of the ticket purchased on June 25, 2010. He found that the five respondents were entitled to an equal share of the winnings and that Cam was not entitled to a share. Therefore, he concluded, Cam had been unjustly enriched at Spiro’s expense by getting the share owed to him.
7Cam argues that the trial judge erred in rejecting her argument that, once she began contributing to the purchase of lottery tickets, she joined an existing partnership governed by the Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-5. According to Cam, the winning ticket was an asset of the partnership and she – together with Spiro and the Other Employees – was entitled to share in the proceeds.
8We reject that submission. We agree with the trial judge that Spiro and the Other Employees are properly characterized as co-owners of the June 25 ticket. As such, Cam was not entitled to a share of the winnings. We acknowledge that a few court decisions, without legal analysis, have described a lottery ticket as a “partnership” asset. In our view, they do so loosely, simply to convey the idea that the lottery ticket was jointly owned by two or more people.
9In any event, even if the lottery pool were a partnership, the appellant would have no entitlement to a share of the winnings. If there were a partnership, it was a partnership comprised of Spiro and the Other Employees only for the limited purpose of purchasing the June 25 ticket, and not an ongoing partnership.
10The appeal is dismissed. As per the parties’ agreements, Cam shall pay the respondents’ costs of this appeal as follows: (i) $9,926.46, all inclusive, payable to Spiro; and (ii) $5,000 plus HST, payable to the Other Employees.
“Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.”
“David M. Brown J.A.”
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”