Mandeep Mann with the obligatory big cheque showing his winnings.

Image Credit: CONTRIBUTED

A BC truck driver who won $2-million in the lottery has managed to hang onto his winnings after he was sued by his colleagues who said the cash was part of their workplace lottery pool.

According to Jan. 10 BC Supreme Court decision, Mandeep Singh Maan kept his winnings quiet from his colleagues who only found out when a photo appeared in the media of him holding the obligatory big cheque.

"Initially, the (colleagues) congratulated Mr. Maan on his win. However, they soon became suspicious," BC Supreme Court Justice Liliane Bantourakis said in the decision.

Two weeks later they took him to court arguing the money needed to be split.

The decision says Mann is a short-haul truck driver and was in a workplace lottery pool with colleagues Balvinder Kaur Nagra, Sukhjinder Singh Sidhu, Binipal Singh Sanghera and Jeevan Pedan. Each week they each put in $10.

"While this case is based in the law of contract and trusts, the outcome turns on the answer to a largely factual question: was the winning ticket a group ticket, or not?" Justice Bantourakis said.

Another question to be asked was whether Maan received group money for his winning ticket purchase, or was he otherwise buying or required to buy lottery tickets for the group that day.

The decision says the colleagues had no set person who bought the lottery tickets each week or any written agreement about the lottery pool.

Each week, different tickets were bought for different lotteries.

Over a nine-day trial, members of the lottery pool testified about what took place.

The colleagues argued that in August 2022, Maan agreed to buy the group tickets that day and was given $40.

READ MORE: Terminally ill Salmon Arm grandmother leaving legacy of love, family and nursing

However, the Justice didn't buy the testimony from one colleague who changed his story three times.

"It is not apparent whether Mr. Sanghera was trying to mislead the Court... it is possible that his belief that he and the other (colleagues) are entitled to a share of the winnings has coloured his recollection and caused him to revisit that recollection when confronted with facts that do not align with it," the Justice said. "However, the fact remains that I find Mr. Sanghera’s evidence unreliable on matters of central importance to the claim and I reject it. Without it, evidence that Mr. Maan received group money or agreed to buy for the group... is lacking."

The decision says the group's lottery ticket purchase normally costs $40 to $50.

However, when Maan bought the winning ticket at a Chevron gas station, he only spent $12.

"I find that if Mr. Maan had been using group money or tickets, or otherwise buying for the group, the total amount spent on Lottomax, Lotto 6/49, and/or BC/49 tickets while he was at the Chevron station would likely have been significantly more than the $12 documented in the BC Lottery Corporation records. I find that the $12 amount is more consistent with an individual purchase," the Justice said.

READ MORE: Vernon contractor billed $3,400 for turning gas on, then sued

The Justice ruled that Maan's winning ticket was his personal ticket, not one he bought for the workplace pool.

His colleagues then argued Maan had breached an agreement between them by not buying tickets for the group that week and therefore he should share the winnings.

However, the Justice didn't buy it.

"The fact that the parties bought lottery tickets together, even if they did so with some frequency, is not sufficient to discharge the (colleagues’) burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that they entered into a binding oral agreement with (Maan) that would give them a claim over the winning ticket," the Justice said. "I find they have not done so."

The Justice said that while winning the lottery should have been a happy event, sadly, it has ruined their relationship.

"It is my impression that each of the (colleagues) came to Court with a sincerely held belief in their entitlement to a share of the winnings," the Justice said. "Though (they) may feel that they have a moral entitlement to a share of the winnings, they have not established any legal entitlement."

The colleagues didn't get their hands on any of the winnings and now they're also on the hook for court fees.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2025