Saul I. Glober

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding she was unjustly enriched by receiving a $200,000 share of a winning lottery ticket.

The respondent, a former employee, had contributed to the ticket before leaving his job, while the appellant joined the workplace lottery pool after the ticket was purchased.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the ticket was co-owned by the original contributors and rejected the appellant's argument that the pool constituted an ongoing partnership under the Partnerships Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

Dispute over a workplace lottery pool after a free play ticket generated from a ticket purchased before one participant joined the group later won $1,000,000.

The court found the plaintiff had contributed to the June 25, 2010 ticket and was entitled to a one-fifth share of the winnings.

The later-joining participant's argument that the pool was a partnership under the Partnerships Act was rejected because the group was not carrying on a business with a view to profit.

Her counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff obtained judgment against the four co-participants for $40,000 each, and all five proper participants were granted judgment for $200,000 against her.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment exceeding $280,000 obtained for unpaid deliveries of worms supplied to a bait wholesaler.

The court considered the established factors for setting aside default judgment: promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, and the existence of a triable defence.

Although the motion was brought relatively shortly after the defendants learned of the judgment, the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to defend the action and produced no documentary evidence supporting alleged set‑offs or adjustments to the debt.

The court found the alleged defence consisted of unsupported assertions lacking an air of reality.

Considering the integrity of the administration of justice, the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the default judgment.

The parties entered into an oral joint venture to redevelop a residential property, with profits to be shared equally after completion and sale.

After disputes arose during construction, the defendant excluded the plaintiff from the project, refused to acknowledge the plaintiff’s interest in the property, obtained a second mortgage without notice, and ultimately sold the unfinished property without the plaintiff’s consent.

The court found the arrangement constituted a partnership under the Partnerships Act and that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a repudiation and breach of the partnership agreement.

The plaintiff was therefore justified in ceasing further financial contributions after being excluded from the project.

Liability was determined in Phase 1, with damages and accounting to be addressed in a subsequent phase.